These notes are available to download in booklet form.
|
|
Introduction
Without wanting to give too much away at this early stage I think it’s quite clear that developmental psychology considers the way we grow and change over time. In psychology we may look at childhood or adolescence or consider the way in which we develop our gender identity or sexuality. This topic, cognition and development, considers the way we develop our ability to think, our sense of morality and our sense of self-identity.
At birth we’re pretty useless! We remain that way for many years, certainly compared to most species, many of whom can be up and running and taking care of themselves within minutes.
For humans development (physical and psychological) is a slow process. At what age do we become fully-fledged thinkers? When do we fully learn to empathise and develop a sense of fair play and justice? How old before a child learns to recognise itself in the mirror or realise that others may view the World very differently to themselves?
Like all topics on PSYA3 it’s neatly, but certainly not evenly, split into three sections.
We start by looking at development of thinking. This is a huge section! We will consider the highly influential theory of Piaget and temper it with a more cultured Russian alternative (Vygotsky). We shall consider how the two very different approaches to childhood thinking have been applied separately and collectively to Western education.
Sub-topic two is now minute! Piaget proposed a theory of moral development that Kohlberg then developed further. We shall consider his theory in detail and look at its ethnic and androcentric bias.
Finally we look at three ways of viewing social cognition. How the child learns its sense of self-identity and theory of mind, how it learns to understand the views of others and finally consider biological mechanisms that might be underpinning these developments.
Along the way we shall consider other theories; for example those of Bruner, Eisenberg and Gilligan that can be used by way of comparison and evaluation.
Development of Thinking
Jean Piaget
Background and introduction
Without wanting to give too much away at this early stage I think it’s quite clear that developmental psychology considers the way we grow and change over time. In psychology we may look at childhood or adolescence or consider the way in which we develop our gender identity or sexuality. This topic, cognition and development, considers the way we develop our ability to think, our sense of morality and our sense of self-identity.
At birth we’re pretty useless! We remain that way for many years, certainly compared to most species, many of whom can be up and running and taking care of themselves within minutes.
For humans development (physical and psychological) is a slow process. At what age do we become fully-fledged thinkers? When do we fully learn to empathise and develop a sense of fair play and justice? How old before a child learns to recognise itself in the mirror or realise that others may view the World very differently to themselves?
Like all topics on PSYA3 it’s neatly, but certainly not evenly, split into three sections.
We start by looking at development of thinking. This is a huge section! We will consider the highly influential theory of Piaget and temper it with a more cultured Russian alternative (Vygotsky). We shall consider how the two very different approaches to childhood thinking have been applied separately and collectively to Western education.
Sub-topic two is now minute! Piaget proposed a theory of moral development that Kohlberg then developed further. We shall consider his theory in detail and look at its ethnic and androcentric bias.
Finally we look at three ways of viewing social cognition. How the child learns its sense of self-identity and theory of mind, how it learns to understand the views of others and finally consider biological mechanisms that might be underpinning these developments.
Along the way we shall consider other theories; for example those of Bruner, Eisenberg and Gilligan that can be used by way of comparison and evaluation.
Development of Thinking
Jean Piaget
Background and introduction
|
|
Piaget is a towering figure in psychology and widely respected by all, including those who have criticised or adapted his theories. Contrary to popular belief Piaget was not French (despite being called Jean), he was in fact Swiss. Nor was he a psychologist (not at the outset anyway) but a zoologist (which should really be spelt zooologist surely!). He had his first publication on molluscs when he was still at High School! Whilst working with Binet (who was French) and an early pioneer of IQ tests, he became fascinated by child development and spent the next 50 some years of his life studying the subject. As a result Piaget was a true expert in his field, which as we shall see later, also covered moral development. Stages in the development of Jean Piaget |
Piaget’s theory is sometimes described as ‘genetic epistemology.’ ‘Genetic’ because he believed that the stages we progress through and the structures and processes we use, are inbuilt and true for all of us regardless of culture. ‘Epistemology’ (not a word to be uttered when in the state suggested by the word) actually means the study of knowledge. Basically Piaget believed that the way in which we learn about and adapt to our World is constant across all cultures and races, and proceeds as a set sequence in all.
Central to Piaget's theory is how the child adapts to an ever-changing World. Piaget noticed that even the youngest of children are inquisitive and actively explore their world. Piaget is most famous for his stages but any description of his theory must also include a discussion of the structures that underlie these stages. It is tempting in an essay on Piaget to write exclusively about his stages, since you will know them backwards in great detail by the time the exam comes round. However, it is essential that the other aspects of his theory are covered too. His processes (or ‘functional invariants’ as he lovingly referred to them) are constant (as their name suggests) throughout all stages, working to make sense of our environment. Schemas (strictly speaking the plural should be ‘schemata’) are the internal representations that we hang our understanding on. Schemata were mentioned in AS memory and will crop up in other topics later in the year. Enough waffle… let’s get on with it.
Central to Piaget's theory is how the child adapts to an ever-changing World. Piaget noticed that even the youngest of children are inquisitive and actively explore their world. Piaget is most famous for his stages but any description of his theory must also include a discussion of the structures that underlie these stages. It is tempting in an essay on Piaget to write exclusively about his stages, since you will know them backwards in great detail by the time the exam comes round. However, it is essential that the other aspects of his theory are covered too. His processes (or ‘functional invariants’ as he lovingly referred to them) are constant (as their name suggests) throughout all stages, working to make sense of our environment. Schemas (strictly speaking the plural should be ‘schemata’) are the internal representations that we hang our understanding on. Schemata were mentioned in AS memory and will crop up in other topics later in the year. Enough waffle… let’s get on with it.
I got so excited telling you about the great man that I neglected to mention the structure of this first topic. It covers the way our thinking develops over time, and how as we mature we become capable of more complex methods of thinking. A number of theories have developed to try and explain how this happens.
Schemas and associated concepts
Schema: an internal representation of the world. This acts as a framework on which the child bases its knowledge of the environment. According to Piaget we are born with some schemata including sucking and grasping. In the first year of life many other simple schemata develop, for example the schema for mum very quickly develops as the child learns to distinguish her from others as a source of food and comfort. Later the schemata become more complex and include concepts such as density, grammar, love, nature-nurture debate etc. Schemata are crucial as they enable us to interpret and predict events.
Helen Bee (2000) believes that schemata are not so much the categories themselves but the action of categorising.
Equilibrium and disequilibrium: the child requires a stable internal world. If new experience does not match existing schema then a state of disequilibrium (or inbalance) is produced. The child needs to accommodate to restore the balance, i.e. alter its perception of how things work. Piaget saw this desire for equilibrium as innate and believed that it drives or motivates us to learn. Simple examples would be having a schema for dog and misinterpreting a cat as a dog. On being told the mistake this causes temporary confusion and the child needs to alter its schemata to allow for this. According to Piaget Disequilibrium is essential for learning, however, there appears to be little or no empirical evidence to support this!
Adaptation: is the method by which the child constructs meaning about the World. Adaptation comes about through the processes of assimilation and accommodation:
Operations: Not always mentioned specifically in texts but nevertheless crucial, by definition, to the stages. Operations are mental transformations or manipulations that occur in the mind. In other words, a child that has operational thought can do things in its head, for example count. In pre-operational thinking (first two stages) the child needs physical examples, so it will use its fingers to count. Piaget believed that it was operations that provided the rules by which the child is able to understand the world. While schemas develop with experience operations only develop as the child’s brain develops. So children in the first two stages do not possess operations, hence ‘preoperational.’ As the brain matures the child is capable of ever more complex understanding.
Additional terminology: Piaget referred to the processes of disequilibriation and equilibriation as functional invariants. These are processes that remain constant and unchanged throughout the entire developmental process.
Schemas and operations however are in a constant state of change, being updated and added to throughout life. These are referred to as variant structures by Piaget.
Stages
Sensori-motor (0-2 years)
The child lacks internal schemas or representations. The child's understanding of its world is directly through its senses from moment to moment. The child only thinks about objects/people it can sense and objects it can manipulate or move, hence the term ‘sensori-motor.’ It therefore stands to reason that an object out of view is no longer considered and therefore the child lacks object permanence (see below).
Schemas and associated concepts
Schema: an internal representation of the world. This acts as a framework on which the child bases its knowledge of the environment. According to Piaget we are born with some schemata including sucking and grasping. In the first year of life many other simple schemata develop, for example the schema for mum very quickly develops as the child learns to distinguish her from others as a source of food and comfort. Later the schemata become more complex and include concepts such as density, grammar, love, nature-nurture debate etc. Schemata are crucial as they enable us to interpret and predict events.
Helen Bee (2000) believes that schemata are not so much the categories themselves but the action of categorising.
Equilibrium and disequilibrium: the child requires a stable internal world. If new experience does not match existing schema then a state of disequilibrium (or inbalance) is produced. The child needs to accommodate to restore the balance, i.e. alter its perception of how things work. Piaget saw this desire for equilibrium as innate and believed that it drives or motivates us to learn. Simple examples would be having a schema for dog and misinterpreting a cat as a dog. On being told the mistake this causes temporary confusion and the child needs to alter its schemata to allow for this. According to Piaget Disequilibrium is essential for learning, however, there appears to be little or no empirical evidence to support this!
Adaptation: is the method by which the child constructs meaning about the World. Adaptation comes about through the processes of assimilation and accommodation:
- Assimilation: new information or experiences can be fitted into the child's existing schema or current understanding of the world. It sees a poodle and is able to fit this into the same schema as the family’s bull mastiff!
- Accommodation: new information or experiences cannot be fitted into the child's current understanding so it either has to alter existing schema or create a whole new schema; for example cat doesn’t fit in with its schema for dog. In these cases new schemas need to be constructed bringing about a structural change.
Operations: Not always mentioned specifically in texts but nevertheless crucial, by definition, to the stages. Operations are mental transformations or manipulations that occur in the mind. In other words, a child that has operational thought can do things in its head, for example count. In pre-operational thinking (first two stages) the child needs physical examples, so it will use its fingers to count. Piaget believed that it was operations that provided the rules by which the child is able to understand the world. While schemas develop with experience operations only develop as the child’s brain develops. So children in the first two stages do not possess operations, hence ‘preoperational.’ As the brain matures the child is capable of ever more complex understanding.
Additional terminology: Piaget referred to the processes of disequilibriation and equilibriation as functional invariants. These are processes that remain constant and unchanged throughout the entire developmental process.
Schemas and operations however are in a constant state of change, being updated and added to throughout life. These are referred to as variant structures by Piaget.
Stages
Sensori-motor (0-2 years)
The child lacks internal schemas or representations. The child's understanding of its world is directly through its senses from moment to moment. The child only thinks about objects/people it can sense and objects it can manipulate or move, hence the term ‘sensori-motor.’ It therefore stands to reason that an object out of view is no longer considered and therefore the child lacks object permanence (see below).
|
|
Lacks object permanence. Child assumes that objects no longer exist if they’re not visible. Research evidence Piaget carried out research on his own children. They would be shown an attractive object that would then be hidden from view. Children up to the age of 8 months don’t bother to look for it assuming it to no longer exist. After 8 months children will continue to search for hidden objects. |
Evidence against
Bower & Wishart (1972) showed objects to children between the ages of 1 and 4 months. Lights were switched off so that the objects were no longer visible but the child could be seen, by infrared camera, continuing to search for the object.
Baillargeon and DeVos (1991) employed an ingenious experiment using long and short carrots. Someone remind me to explain this one to you ‘cos it will take some explaining in text! Basically it relies on the concept that children will spend longer looking at events that they consider to be impossible. In this case, even though the carrots were not visible for a crucial stage of the experiment children as young as three months old realised that they still existed and spent longer puzzling over the ‘impossible situation.’
Clearly this casts doubt on Piaget’s assertion that children didn’t develop object permanence until 8 months of age!
General Symbolic Function (GSF)
This occurs at the very end of the sensori-motor stage and is seen as a transition point to pre-operational thinking. For the first time children develop the ability to hold an image in their mind allowing them to picture, remember and replicate objects that are out of view. In essence they now have the ability to create mental images.
From now on they can draw and paint objects from memory, play at being mummy and daddy (later even doctors and nurses… well much later) and to be able to talk about things not present such as granny in Fleckney.
Pre-Operational Stage (2 to 7 years)
The child is still dominated by the external world, rather than its own thoughts. However, they are now able to build upon the general symbolic function (GSF) started at the end of sensori-motor and create some simple internal representations of its world (schemas) through its increasing ability to use language. The stage is called 'pre-operational' since the child is unable to perform operations (such as heart by-passes and key hole surgery; well you know what I mean!). An 'operation' according to Piaget, is a mental rule for manipulating objects or ideas into new forms, and then, crucially, being able to manipulate them back again. Since preoperational children are unable to reverse things mentally they are unable to do this.
This stage can be subdivided into pre-conceptual (2 to 4 years) and intuitive (4 to 7 years)
Pre-conceptual
Animism
This is related to egocentricism and is the tendency to attribute feelings to inanimate objects so for example the child may apologise for hurting its teddy bear or decide to punish one of its toys for being naughty. I’ll restrain from any adult humour here! Other inabilities include not being able to decentre or place things in logical order (seriation)
Egocentricism
The child remains egocentric but this now refers more to its inability to see things from other people's perspectives, as famously demonstrated by the 'Three Mountains' task.
|
|
Research evidence
Piaget & Inhelder’s ‘Three Mountains Task.’ Children choose the perspective of a doll placed on the other side of the scene. To complete this task successfully children would have to imagine the view as seen by the doll. The researchers found that children below the age of 7 had problems completing the task, tending to choose the photo that showed their view of the mountains. Think of the young girl in the video explaining her new toy to her grandfather on the phone and assuming that because she could see it so could her granddad. |
Evidence to contradict Piaget
Hughes (1975) repeated the three mountains task using a situation he thought would be more familiar to the child, i.e. the naughty boy hiding from the policeman. Hughes found that 90% of children aged 3 to 5 could complete the task successfully, concluding that it was lack of understanding rather than egocentricism that was causing the problems for Piaget's participants.
General evaluation points on this stage
Piaget’s research has generated lots of research into this particular stage, but it has been inconclusive or at odds with Piaget’s original work:
Piaget often under-estimated the age at which children could perform activities. Wheldall & Poborca (1980) believe that children are unable to perform conservation tasks because they don't understand the question.
Variations in an experimental procedure can produce very different findings. Some studies conclude that children are still egocentric others that they have out grown this characteristic.
Piaget’s original studies were often poorly thought through and for example were not suited to the age range of the children he was studying. Instructions may have been confusing or the tasks themselves too complex. For example ‘Three Mountains’ task which was manageable when re-worked by Hughes in a more familiar format.
Gelman (1978) believes the word ‘more’ is also a possible source of confusion. Adults use the word to mean a greater number whereas children use it to mean larger or taking up more space.
Concrete Operational Stage (7 to 11 years)
The child is now able to carry out operations on its environment and develops logical thought. However, it still requires concrete examples, being unable to think in abstract terms. Less importance is attached to information from our senses as we use thought and imagination more. The child continues to mature in its thinking and becomes ever less egocentric.
Reversibility
Refers to the ability to mentally picture an action being carried out in reverse. This is essential for conservation, e.g. imagining the water being poured back into the original beaker.
Conservation
Conservation is the realisation that amounts remain the same unless something is added or removed. Some texts include this in the pre-operational stage (where generally children fail the tasks) others discuss it in concrete operational where the skill develops.
Piaget believed the inability to conserve was due to two factors:
Hughes (1975) repeated the three mountains task using a situation he thought would be more familiar to the child, i.e. the naughty boy hiding from the policeman. Hughes found that 90% of children aged 3 to 5 could complete the task successfully, concluding that it was lack of understanding rather than egocentricism that was causing the problems for Piaget's participants.
General evaluation points on this stage
Piaget’s research has generated lots of research into this particular stage, but it has been inconclusive or at odds with Piaget’s original work:
Piaget often under-estimated the age at which children could perform activities. Wheldall & Poborca (1980) believe that children are unable to perform conservation tasks because they don't understand the question.
Variations in an experimental procedure can produce very different findings. Some studies conclude that children are still egocentric others that they have out grown this characteristic.
Piaget’s original studies were often poorly thought through and for example were not suited to the age range of the children he was studying. Instructions may have been confusing or the tasks themselves too complex. For example ‘Three Mountains’ task which was manageable when re-worked by Hughes in a more familiar format.
Gelman (1978) believes the word ‘more’ is also a possible source of confusion. Adults use the word to mean a greater number whereas children use it to mean larger or taking up more space.
Concrete Operational Stage (7 to 11 years)
The child is now able to carry out operations on its environment and develops logical thought. However, it still requires concrete examples, being unable to think in abstract terms. Less importance is attached to information from our senses as we use thought and imagination more. The child continues to mature in its thinking and becomes ever less egocentric.
Reversibility
Refers to the ability to mentally picture an action being carried out in reverse. This is essential for conservation, e.g. imagining the water being poured back into the original beaker.
Conservation
Conservation is the realisation that amounts remain the same unless something is added or removed. Some texts include this in the pre-operational stage (where generally children fail the tasks) others discuss it in concrete operational where the skill develops.
Piaget believed the inability to conserve was due to two factors:
- Centration: the child is only considering the height of the liquid and ignoring the width. Older children realise that height and width are important and that increasing height but narrowing the width act to cancel each other out.
- Reversibility: the child is unable to visualise the task being carried out in reverse; in this case the water being poured back into the original container.
|
|
Piaget believed that conservation of number develops first. He demonstrated this by the use of counters. Children are shown 2 rows each with the same number of counters and realise the 2 rows contain the same number. If the researcher rearranges one of the rows by spacing the counters out the child believes there are more.
Conservation of volume, as demonstrated by pouring liquid from small wide beakers into tall thin measuring cylinders, develops later, at the very end of the concrete operational stage. |
Evaluation
Rose & Black (1974) believed asking the child the same question twice was confusing. ‘Are there the same number of buttons in each row?’ The buttons would then be rearranged and the question repeated. Perhaps the children believe this to be a trick question. Samuel & Bryant (1984) repeated the counters experiment but only asked the question once, after the counters had been rearranged. This produced more correct answers!
Siegal (1991) carried out an ingenious study to show the effects of demand characteristics in Piaget’s conservation procedures. Children of three and four years were tested on the procedure, being asked the same question twice. They then watched as other children repeated the procedure and were asked to explain what they had seen. Often when the children got the task wrong the observing participants explained that they had only done so to please the adults. Many of the children who themselves had got the answer wrong were able to explain why others were also getting it wrong.
McGarrigle & Donaldson (1974) showed that children as young as 4 could conserve number if the situation is given meaning.
It is also important to note that Piaget concentrates almost entirely on mathematical skills and logic. Between the ages of 7 and 11 children acquire a vast number of other new skills that Piaget chose to ignore.
McGarrigle & Donaldson (1974) repeated Piaget’s conservation experiment on 6-year-old children. The child is shown 2 rows of equal numbers of counters. The child agrees that the 2 rows are the same. If the researcher then messes one of the rows up, without altering the number of counters, only 16% believe that the number of counters is still the same. So far just as Piaget would have predicted. However, when a naughty teddy bear messes up the row of counters 62% of children in this age group are able to conserve! This shows that children are better able to conserve than Piaget proposed. M & D assume that in the original condition it appears to the child that the researchers are intending to alter the number of counters, or that they are asking a trick question. In the teddy condition there is a reason for the counters just to be messed up so the situation has meaning.
Another method Piaget used to test centration was class inclusion. He had a selection of different coloured wooden beads, mostly brown in colour but with a few white ones too. When asked; ‘are there more brown beads or more white beads?’ children have no problem getting the answer right. However, ask them; ‘are there more brown beads or more wooden beads?’ and generally they stick to their original answer ‘more brown beads’ even though all the beads are wooden and therefore more numerous.
Piaget explains this in terms of the child’s inability to distinguish between superordinate groups (wooden beads) and a sub-class or subordinate group, brown beads.
Donaldson however, believed that yet again the nature of the question confuses the child. She presented children with 4 toy cows laid on their side (as if asleep). Three of the cows were brown and one was white. When asked; ‘are there more brown cows or white cows?’ children get it right. But when asked; ‘are there more brown cows or more cows?’ only 25% answer correctly, pretty much as Piaget would have predicted. However, when asked ‘are there more brown cows or more sleeping cows?’ this percentage doubles. You are now comparing two subordinate groups; brown cows and sleeping cows and the task becomes easier.
General evaluation points on this stage:
Piaget’s research has generated lots of research into this particular stage, but it has been inconclusive or at odds with Piaget’s original work: Piaget often under-estimated the age at which children could perform activities. Wheldall & Poborca (1980) believe that children are unable to perform conservation tasks because they don't understand the question.
Variations in an experimental procedure can produce very different findings. Some studies conclude that children are still egocentric others that they have out grown this characteristic.
Piaget’s original studies were often poorly thought through and for example were not suited to the age range of the children he was studying. Instructions may have been confusing or the tasks themselves too complex. For example ‘Three Mountains’ task which was manageable when re-worked by Hughes in a more familiar format.
Gelman (1978) believes the word ‘more’ is also a possible source of confusion. Adults use the word to mean a greater number whereas children use it to mean larger or taking up more space.
Rose & Black (1974) believed asking the child the same question twice was confusing. ‘Are there the same number of buttons in each row?’ The buttons would then be rearranged and the question repeated. Perhaps the children believe this to be a trick question. Samuel & Bryant (1984) repeated the counters experiment but only asked the question once, after the counters had been rearranged. This produced more correct answers!
Siegal (1991) carried out an ingenious study to show the effects of demand characteristics in Piaget’s conservation procedures. Children of three and four years were tested on the procedure, being asked the same question twice. They then watched as other children repeated the procedure and were asked to explain what they had seen. Often when the children got the task wrong the observing participants explained that they had only done so to please the adults. Many of the children who themselves had got the answer wrong were able to explain why others were also getting it wrong.
McGarrigle & Donaldson (1974) showed that children as young as 4 could conserve number if the situation is given meaning.
It is also important to note that Piaget concentrates almost entirely on mathematical skills and logic. Between the ages of 7 and 11 children acquire a vast number of other new skills that Piaget chose to ignore.
McGarrigle & Donaldson (1974) repeated Piaget’s conservation experiment on 6-year-old children. The child is shown 2 rows of equal numbers of counters. The child agrees that the 2 rows are the same. If the researcher then messes one of the rows up, without altering the number of counters, only 16% believe that the number of counters is still the same. So far just as Piaget would have predicted. However, when a naughty teddy bear messes up the row of counters 62% of children in this age group are able to conserve! This shows that children are better able to conserve than Piaget proposed. M & D assume that in the original condition it appears to the child that the researchers are intending to alter the number of counters, or that they are asking a trick question. In the teddy condition there is a reason for the counters just to be messed up so the situation has meaning.
Another method Piaget used to test centration was class inclusion. He had a selection of different coloured wooden beads, mostly brown in colour but with a few white ones too. When asked; ‘are there more brown beads or more white beads?’ children have no problem getting the answer right. However, ask them; ‘are there more brown beads or more wooden beads?’ and generally they stick to their original answer ‘more brown beads’ even though all the beads are wooden and therefore more numerous.
Piaget explains this in terms of the child’s inability to distinguish between superordinate groups (wooden beads) and a sub-class or subordinate group, brown beads.
Donaldson however, believed that yet again the nature of the question confuses the child. She presented children with 4 toy cows laid on their side (as if asleep). Three of the cows were brown and one was white. When asked; ‘are there more brown cows or white cows?’ children get it right. But when asked; ‘are there more brown cows or more cows?’ only 25% answer correctly, pretty much as Piaget would have predicted. However, when asked ‘are there more brown cows or more sleeping cows?’ this percentage doubles. You are now comparing two subordinate groups; brown cows and sleeping cows and the task becomes easier.
General evaluation points on this stage:
Piaget’s research has generated lots of research into this particular stage, but it has been inconclusive or at odds with Piaget’s original work: Piaget often under-estimated the age at which children could perform activities. Wheldall & Poborca (1980) believe that children are unable to perform conservation tasks because they don't understand the question.
Variations in an experimental procedure can produce very different findings. Some studies conclude that children are still egocentric others that they have out grown this characteristic.
Piaget’s original studies were often poorly thought through and for example were not suited to the age range of the children he was studying. Instructions may have been confusing or the tasks themselves too complex. For example ‘Three Mountains’ task which was manageable when re-worked by Hughes in a more familiar format.
Gelman (1978) believes the word ‘more’ is also a possible source of confusion. Adults use the word to mean a greater number whereas children use it to mean larger or taking up more space.
Formal Operational stage (11 years onwards)
Piaget used the term ‘formal’ since children in this stage can concentrate on the form of an argument without being distracted by the content (Jarvis 2001). For example if x is greater than y but less than x. The child can now work this out without needing to know what x, y and z refer to. Smith et al (1998) provide the following example:
‘All green birds have two heads. I have a green bird called Charlie. How many heads does Charlie have?’ A child in the earlier stages would be bogged down by the content, i.e. birds have one head. Formal thinkers can concentrate on the structure (or form) of the question in this context.
Piaget maintained that everyone would reach this stage eventually, even if it took us until 20. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is not the case and that certainly it tends to occur later than Piaget predicted. Bradmetz (1999), in a longitudinal study showed that out of 62 children tested at the age of 15, on a series of Piagetian tasks, only one had reached formal thought! Formal operational thinking has the following features:
Abstract thought
The child can now think in abstract terms so no longer requires concrete examples to solve problems. Hypothetical thought
The child is able to consider things that it has no experience of and consider imaginary scenarios e.g. Charlie having two heads.
Hypotheses testing
Faced with a problem the formal thinker will approach it logically, produce a list of possibilities and test each one systematically. (Think of GCSE science coursework).
Solve syllogisms
These are a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is reached from a number of statements.
For example:
When B is larger than C, X is smaller than C. But C is never larger than B.
True or false, X is never larger than B?
Other features
This level of thought also allows for an appreciation of values and ideals (necessary for more advanced moral thinking).
Research evidence
Piaget would set children the task of finding what determines the frequency of swing of a pendulum. Concrete thinkers normally believe that it is the push that the experimenter gives it. When they test possibilities they fail to control other variables. The formal thinker on the other hand considers all possible variables such as push, length of string, weight of bob etc. They carefully isolate variables and control confounding variables.
Evidence against
Some psychologists argue that formal operational thought is not as important to everyday life as Piaget seems to have concluded. Since most problems we face have no one obvious right answer, logical thought is not always necessary.
It seems many adults never actually reach Piaget’s description of formal thinking.
Gladwin (1970) argues that the tests Piaget used are inappropriate for testing non-western culture. The Pulawat navigators of Polynesia demonstrate formal thinking when navigating in their canoes but fail western tests designed to test their formal thinking.
Dasen (1977) believes that this final stage is culturally determined so is not genetic like the first three. This might explain why so many people fail to get here!
General criticisms Ages and stages Research mostly suggests that children acquire their skills earlier than Piaget suggested (e.g. Hughes, McGarrigle and Donaldson etc). The exception being formal ops which some psychologists believe that only 30% of the population ever reach. Dasen argues that some cultures don’t develop formal operational thought at all. Many of the stages overlap (decalage) for example during the concrete stage there is constant development in small sub-stages as the child learns to conserve number then amount and finally liquid. So rather than a sudden stop-start stage process, development becomes more of a steady progression.
Cross-cultural evidence
From a cross-cultural perspective the order of the stages seems to be universal, although rate of progression varies. Dasen (1984) carried out conservation type tests and tests of spatial relationships on Aboriginal children ages eight to fourteen.
Typically he found that they performed less well than Western children on conservation tasks with this skill not being developed until the age of 13 in some of those tested whereas spatial awareness developed younger than in the west. In fact when tested for conservation many adults couldn’t complete the task successfully. Such findings are perhaps not surprising in a group of people that spend so much time on the move and amounts don’t need to be measured accurately. However, when Aborigines live in western societies and receive a western education their skills develop in line with western norms. This would suggest that the stages are not as universal as Piaget believed and also suggests that culture is a major influence on development. See Vygotsky’s theory for an explanation of this one.
Performance and ability. Piaget measured a child’s performance and assumed that this was a true reflection of its underlying ability. For whatever reason children do not always perform to the best of their ability, e.g. lack of understanding of the problem, as highlighted by McGarrigle & Donaldson (1974). Domain-general or specific?
Piaget seemed to believe that all cognitive functions develop at a similar rate and in tandem; his theory is domain-general. So abilities with language, number, spatial and scientific will all mirror each other’s development. However, work since Piaget’s death suggests cognitive functions develop independently of one another (so called domain-specific or modular).
Other abilities.
Piaget tended to focus on logical and mathematical thought development, neglecting other developments such as memory and social abilities etc. These may account for the wide individual differences between children.
Methods.
Hughes and McGarrigle & Donaldson have shown that using different methods, children can achieve stages at an earlier age than was predicted. They believe Piaget’s experiments were over complex and used language that the child was unable to relate to.
Piaget used the clinical interview technique, which is time consuming. As a result his sample sizes tended to be small.
When observing behaviour it is usual to use inter-rater reliability (two or more people observing and comparing notes in some way) in order to reduce bias. Piaget could have used this method but preferred to observe alone making his research less reliable and reducing its validity.
Demand characteristics It is believed that children in Piaget’s experiments may have given answers that they thought Piaget wanted to hear rather than the answers that they believed to be right.
Unrealistic
As Segall (1999) points out, Piaget portrays a child as an ‘idealised, non-existent individual, completely divorced form the social environment.’ As we’ll see later, Vygotsky helps to redress this balance.
Individual differences
These were largely ignored. Piaget admitted that he wanted to produce a general (nomothetic) theory of development of intelligence and knowledge. He wasn’t interested in individual differences (idiographic explanations).
General Favourable comments Much of Piaget’s work has received widespread support. Piaget did adapt his early theories to take account of criticisms. He also believed that one day it could be integrated with other theories to produce a rounded view of child development.
Productivity
Few Psychologists, if any, have provoked as much follow up research. Over the years this has added significantly to our understanding of child development. For example Bruner and the Information Processing theories both take Piaget as a starting point.
Always mention how influential Piaget’s work has been, both in influencing educational policies (although this was not Piaget’s intention) and in stimulating other research. Schaffer (2004) believes the theory is still the most comprehensive account of how a child comes to understand the World.
Applying Piaget to Education
‘Each time one prematurely teaches a child something he could have discovered for himself, that child is kept from inventing it and consequently from understanding it completely.’
Think of old black and white films that you’ve seen in which children are sat in rows at desks, with ink wells, learning by rote, all chanting in unison in response to questions set by an authoritarian old biddy like Matilda! Children who were unable to keep up were seen as slacking and would be punished by variations on the theme of corporal punishment. Yes, it really did happen and sadly in some parts of the world still does today. Piaget is partly responsible for the change that occurred in the 1960s and for your relatively pleasurable and pain free school days!
In the 1960s the Plowden Committee investigated the deficiencies in education and decided to incorporate many of Piaget’s ideas in to its final report published in 1967, even though Piaget’s work was not really designed for education. The report makes three Piaget-associated recommendations:
- Children should be given individual attention and it should be realised that they need to be treated differently.
- Children should only be taught things that they are capable of learning
- Children mature at different rates and the teacher needs to be aware of the stage of development of each child so teaching can be tailored to their individual needs.
What Piaget would suggest about education:
Readiness (when to teach)
What the child can understand and cope with is limited by its current stage of development. According to Piaget there is no point in teaching a child something that is more advanced than its current level of thinking. According to Schaffer (2004) this was Piaget’s biggest contribution to education. This is a controversial area and paints a negative picture of child development. It would suggest that little can be done to speed up a child’s development. We shall see later that other theorists such as Vygotsky and Bruner suggest a more pro-active role, believing that progress can be speeded up by intervention from adults and older children.
Discovery learning
Learning must be active with the child working things out for itself rather than sitting and being told. Bruner and Vygotsky are broadly in agreement on this one.
Rate of learning
Stages of development are biologically determined so the rate of learning cannot be speeded up. (Bruner believed that increasing language ability would speed up rate of learning, but this appears not to be true).
Role of teacher (the intellectual midwife)
- Adapt lessons to suit the needs of the individual child. Additionally instructions should be tailored to the individual needs of each child. Not easy in a class of thirty however!
- Children should be regularly assessed so their precise level of development can be determined enabling the teacher to provide suitable resources and stimulation.
- Provide stimulation through a variety of tasks.
- Produce/provide resources,
- Produce disequilibrium, i.e. a scenario that is outside the child’s current understanding. As mentioned earlier, Piaget believed disequilibrium was essential to motivate the child to learn. However, I shall say again; there is little evidence to support this belief!
- Use concrete examples when describing abstract concepts, e.g. ships floating for density, pumping water around houses for flow of current in a circuit.
- Allow children to make mistakes, since this will also motivate learning.
- Teachers should not provide direct instruction in the form of ‘lecturing’ or what we in the business refer to as ‘teacher-led.’
For Piaget therefore, the role of the teacher is minimal. The teacher acts as and ‘intellectual midwife’ delivering the child from one stage to the next. Their role is very much one of support with the child doing the learning for itself.
Piaget’s theory was seen as a justification for earlier and controversial teaching techniques such as those advocated by Maria Montessori and John Dewey. Montessori objected to the regimented learning popular in the nineteenth century and instead recommended learning by ‘self-realisation’ and ‘self-elevation.’ In later years her methods were widely adapted around the World. In the UK a number of methods based on Piaget’s recommendations have been adopted over the years.
Examples of use in Education
Nuffield Maths Project is based on Piaget’s stages and assumes that formal operations have been reached by the age of 12. As a result, concrete examples are longer required. For example algebra can be taught.
CASE (Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education)
More on this when we discuss Vygotsky later in the booklet. Shayer and Adey developed this method of teaching in which year seven or eight pupils are given a series of science lessons designed specifically to improve cognitive development. The methods used incorporate the ideas of Piaget and Vygotsky (and to some extent Bruner).
Shayer and Adey make great claims for the lessons. Evidence has found that children that have been through CASE typically score a GCSE grade higher in science and also in maths and English.
Curriculum development
Curricula need to be developed that take into account the age and stage of thinking of the child. For example there is no point in teaching abstract concepts such as algebra or atomic structure to children in primary school. Curricula also need to be sufficiently flexible to allow for variations in ability of different students of the same age. In Britain the National Curriculum and Key Stages broadly reflect the stages that Piaget laid down.
Practical examples:
Egocentricism dominates a child’s thinking in the sensori-motor and preoperational stages. Piaget would therefore predict that using group activities would not be appropriate since children are not capable of understanding the views of others.
However, Smith et al (1998), point out that some children develop earlier than Piaget predicted and that by using group work children can learn to appreciate the views of others in preparation for the concrete operational stage.
The national curriculum emphasises the need for using concrete examples in the primary classroom. Shayer (1997), reported that abstract thought was necessary for success in secondary school (and co-developed the CASE system of teaching science). Recently the National curriculum has been updated to encourage the teaching of some abstract concepts towards the end of primary education, in preparation for secondary courses. (DfEE 1999).
A few concluding comments useful for essays
Child-centred teaching is regarded by some as a child of the ‘liberal sixties.’ In the 1980s the Thatcher government introduced the National Curriculum in an attempt to move away from this and bring more central government control into the teaching of children. So, although the National Curriculum in some ways supports the work of Piaget, (in that it dictates the order of teaching), it can also be seen as prescriptive to the point where it counters Piaget’s child-oriented approach. However, it does still allow for flexibility in teaching methods, allowing teachers to tailor lessons to the needs of their students.
Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky Лев Семёнович Вы́готский
(“the Mozart of Psychology”)
|
|
Biography: for background information only
Vygotsky was born in Orsha in what was then Russia (today Belarus) in 1896, the same year as Piaget. For most of his adult life he therefore grew up in Communist Russia, part of the Soviet Union. His theory reflects this more socialist approach with its emphasis on society and culture being the determinants of development and largely playing down the role of genetics. Being of Jewish descent his early life would not have been easy but he gained admission to University as part of a 3% quota allowed for Jews at the time. Vygotsky was influential in developing socio-cultural theory which adopts a more holistic view of development. He was also a pioneer in special needs education (then referred to as ‘defectology’), in particular the needs of the deaf, visually impaired and children with speech difficulties. His work eventually fell out of favour with the emerging Stalinist regime. |
Precisely why this was the case is open to debate. Some believe it was his emphasis on thinking for oneself, never good under a totalitarian dictatorship. Others believe that the psychological tests being developed at the time were resulting in too many children (up to 10% of the young population) being regarded as ‘special needs.’ Apparently this included Stalin’s son Vasily. Whatever the reason Vygotsky’s work was largely outlawed following his untimely death of TB in 1934 at the age of 37. Copies of his many works were kept in the Central Library in Moscow but could only be accessed with special permission from the secret police. It wasn’t until 1962 that his work began being translated into English. So far 135 out of 180 of his works are available; an impressive output given that he was active for fewer than ten years!
Vygotsky’s theory
Much as I admire his theory, I shall warn you at the start that it isn’t as precisely defined and rigorously tested as Piaget’s. It seems to me to be a sprawling collection of ideas rather than a theory, but tied together by an underlying emphasis on culture and the need for others in the developmental process. Picture it if you like as the Woollies pic n mix as opposed to Piaget’s toffee apple of stages to which everything else sticks. Text books and websites disagree about the bits they choose to cover, some preferring the shrimps of semiotics whilst others choose the coconut mushrooms of concept formation. Still others focus only on the essential jelly beans of ZPD. I miss Woollies L
The Little Apprentice
Vygotsky believed that a child's cognitive development cannot be seen as occurring in a social vacuum. In Vygotsky's view, our ability to think and reason by ourselves and for ourselves (what he terms inner speech or verbal thought) is the result of a fundamentally social process. At birth, we are social beings who are capable of interacting with others, but able to do little either practically or intellectually by or for ourselves. Gradually, however, we move towards self-sufficiency and independence, and by participating in social activities, our capabilities become transformed. For Vygotsky, cognitive development involves an active internalisation of problem-solving processes that takes place as a result of mutual interaction between children and those with whom they have regular social contact (initially parents, but later friends and classmates).
Vygotsky's process of internalisation is the reverse of how Piaget (at least initially) saw things. As Rogoff (1990) has noted, Piaget's idea of 'the child as a scientist' is replaced by the idea of 'the child as an apprentice', who acquires the knowledge and skills of a culture through graded collaboration with those who already possess such knowledge and skills. According to Vygotsky (1981):
'Any function in the child's cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane.'
Tools, functions mediated activity and internalisation
Elementary mental functions.
We all have these when we are born. Many other species also possess the same essential functions. These include memory, attention and sensation. They only show minor development by experience.
Over time we develop other more complex abilities known as:
Higher mental functions.
These include problem solving, mathematical ability, language, abstract thought, planning and the ability to selectively attend.
The development of higher mental functions is mediated by:
Cultural influence.
By cultural influence Vygotsky meant books, teachers, parents, experts or anything capable of passing on the knowledge of previous generations.
If, as Vygotsky suggests, higher mental functions are shaped by culture then different cultures should develop different higher mental functions; Gredler (1992) studied children in Papua New Guinea who learn a counting system of 1 to 29 based on different parts of the body. Clearly this is not going to be good for dealing with large numbers and as a result adults in the culture struggle with problems involving larger numbers.
Vygotsky regarded higher mental functions such as thought, language, mathematical ability and problem solving as the “tools” of the culture in which the child lives. Tools are passed down from the older generations so are culturally mediated.
There is some confusion in the texts as to the difference between a ‘tool’ and a ‘sign.’ According to most texts a ‘tool’ is something that causes a physical change in the World, whereas a ‘sign’ creates an internal, psychological change. However, generally the word ‘tool’ is used now to represent both. Imagine me emailing you to complete a piece of homework. Is that a tool (it causes you to do something physical) or is it a sign (since it creates a psychological state of unhappiness)?
Once passed on these concepts become internalised by the child so essentially become part of the child’s cognitive repertoire. The child can then bring about change itself, not directly but through use of these tools, hence the term mediated activity. The change has been mediated via a tool.
Getting to the point!
The simple example Vygotsky himself provides is how the child learns to acquire to tool of pointing. Initially this begins as an attempt to grasp something out of reach and is directed at the desired object. A parent or local friendly person seeing the child’s attempts will kindly put the object of its desire closer so it can be reached. Gradually the child internalises this grasping behaviour realising it can get results so that it quickly becomes a deliberate action in its own right. The grasp is now weakened so it will have no chance of reaching the object and is instead directed at a local person rather than the object. It has become the tool of pointing.
Tools can be psychological such as language and maths, technological such as laptops and bicycles or values such as velocity and power. However, the most important tool is language:
Language
Language is essential for the communication of knowledge and ideas and as a result is crucial to Vygotsky’s theory. Language is the means by which knowledge acquired by previous generations can be passed onto future generations. It seems that the young of all other species have to start the learning process from scratch. We are told that crocodiles coexisted with dinosaurs 65 million years ago. How far have they developed in that time? What have they achieved? There’s been no crocodile equivalent of Shakespeare, Darwin, Einstein… not even a Fearne Cotton. No great works such as Snapbeth or even A Winter’s Tail! Each new generation of baby crocs has to start afresh, its parents unable to sit it on their lap (?) and pass on their experiences. Humans are different. Each new generation can build upon what its forebears have learned. The accumulated knowledge acquired over hundreds of generations can be passed on within a few years. Paraphrasing Sir Isaac Newton, future generations can stand on the shoulders of giants.
However, we don’t only use language for communication. To understand the theory it is important to understand the role language plays in thinking. In fact thought and language are inseparable. Try to imagine thinking without the use of words.
Carmichael et al 1932 (an oldie but goodie) demonstrated the importance of words in influencing our thinking. He showed participants a picture of a kidney bean and told them it was either a bean or a canoe. When they subsequently were asked to draw what they had seen, the ‘bean’ condition drew an exaggerated picture of a bean whereas the ‘canoe’ groups drew a bean that was longer and thinner with more pronounced sections at the front and back. Click here for a far more detailed account of the Carmichael study.
Vygotsky believed that thought and language develop through a number of stages:
Ages 0 to 2 years
Language and thought develop independently of one another. Children have pre-verbal thought and pre-intellectual speech.
Ages 2 to 7 years
Language has two functions:
Age 7 onwards
The child distinguishes between the two functions of language. Private language is used for thinking and becomes central to cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that language and thinking developed in parallel to each other. As our ability to use language improves this increase our ability to think and vice versa.
Language is crucial both for thinking and communication. A child that has developed language is better able to understand that other children think differently (intersubjectivity).
Research study: Inner speech (Berk, 1994) Convincing evidence of the important role played by inner speech was reported by Berk (1994). She found that 6-year-olds spent an average of 60% of the time talking to themselves while solving problems in mathematics. Those whose speech contained numerous comments about what needed to be done on the current problem did better at mathematics over the following year. This confirmed Vygotsky's view that self-guiding speech can make it easier for children to direct their actions. Presumably this self-guiding speech made it easier for the children to focus their attention on the task in hand.
Vygotsky argued that private speech diminishes and becomes more internal as children's level of performance improves. Berk (1994) discussed a study in which 4- and 5-year-old children made Lego models in each of three sessions. As predicted by Vygotsky, the children's speech become increasingly internalised from session to session as their model-making performance improved. Thus, as Vygotsky assumed, private speech is of most value to children when they are confronted by novel tasks that they do not fully understand.
Evaluation
The usefulness of Vygotsky's theory of diminishing speech depends on what is meant by “speech”. For example, some children with learning difficulties are unable to speak but can perform quite well on many types of tasks. Children who are born profoundly deaf and whose families are hearing often find speech difficult or impossible to acquire but their intelligence is sometimes unimpaired. It is interesting to speculate whether deaf children of deaf parents who grow up using sign language can use signs as their own private “speech” in the way intended by Vygotsky.
Learning through play (courtesy of Wikipedia)
Through play the child develops abstract meaning separate from the objects in the world which is a critical feature in the development of higher mental functions.
The famous example Vygotsky gives is of a child who wants to ride a horse but can’t. As a child under three, the child would show outward signs of frustration, but around the age of three the child's relationship with the world changes:
"Henceforth play is such that the explanation for it must always be that it is the imaginary, illusory realization of unrealizable desires. Imagination is a new formation that is not present in the consciousness of the very young child, is totally absent in animals, and represents a specifically human form of conscious activity. Like all functions of consciousness, it originally arises from action." (Vygotsky, 1978)
We have all seen children stand astride a stick and pretend they are riding a horse. For Vygotsky the stick is acting as a ‘pivot.’ A pivot is a way a child learns to separate words from the objects they represent. A young child thinks ‘horse’ and can’t imagine anything other than a real horse. Through play sticks can also represent ‘horse.’
As children get older, their reliance on pivots such as sticks, dolls and other toys diminishes. They have internalized these pivots as imagination and abstract concepts through which they can understand the world.
Another aspect of play that Vygotsky referred to was the development of social rules that develop, for example, when children play house and adopt the roles of different family members. Playing at being mum involves obeying the rules of maternal behavior. The child in that role has t over-rule how they want to behave which also involves development of self control.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Scaffolding
‘…what is the zone of proximal development today will be the actual zone of development tomorrow. That is, what a child can do with some assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow.’ (Vygotsky 1978).
The ZPD is the difference between what the child can achieve on its own and what it can achieve with help from others. For learning to occur the adult must provide a challenge that is beyond what the child is capable of, but within its capabilities with help, i.e. within its ZPD. Therefore the child can only reach its full potential with help from others. The help given by adults is referred to as scaffolding. It is important that the child is challenged without experiencing failure.
Goodman and Goodman (1990), writing about how teachers teach in the ZPD, offer five guidelines. They say that teachers should:
1. Interfere as little as possible.
2. Ask a question.
3. Offer a useful hint.
4. Direct attention at an anomaly.
5. Direct attention at an overlooked bit of information.
Research evidence
Moss (1992) found that parents, particularly mothers, provide scaffolding. Moss observed three strategies:
1. Mother instructs the child with strategies it would not otherwise know.
2. Mother encourages child to keep using useful strategies.
3. Mother persuades the child to drop inappropriate strategies.
Conner et al (1997) found that fathers are as good at scaffolding. They also found that children that have received scaffolding show longer-term improvements in skills as well as immediate improvements.
Freund (1990) conducted a study in which children had to decide which items of furniture should be placed in particular houses of a dolls house. Some children were allowed to play with their mother in a similar situation before they attempted it alone (zone of proximal development) whilst others were allowed to work on this by themselves (Piaget's discovery learning). Freund found that those who had previously worked with their mother (ZPD) showed greatest improvement compared with their first attempt at the task. The conclusion being that guided learning within the ZPD led to greater understanding/performance than working alone (discovery learning).
Moss and Strayer (1990) also suggest that mothers of gifted children tend to encourage the use of metacognitive strategies more than mothers of children within the normal range of
Development. What is more, Bouffard-Bouchard and Gagne´ -Dupuis (1994) say that the educational practices of mothers with low social status are less directed towards stimulating their children’s zone of proximal development than those displayed by mothers with high social status, and that this influences pre-school children’s cognitive development.
Many researchers e.g. Wertsch (1985) show that more successful adult scaffolders adapt their scaffolding strategies to both their children’s development and the difficulty of the task. Wertsch (1985) reported that adults adjust their speech to children’s language skills, and that when they use demanding cognitive expressions that are beyond the child’s current skills they tend to be ineffective.
Woods et al (1976) also emphasises this tailoring of support. They watched mothers teaching their young children to construct a 3D pyramid. Those showing ‘sensitive guidance’ were most successful. Too much help led to frustration and too little to lack of motivation. A Goldilocks situation: level of help needs to be just right J
Evaluation
Vygotsky’s greatest contribution was in recognising the importance of social interaction in the cognitive development of children. Whereas Piaget predicts that all children, regardless of culture, should make the same progression through his stages, Vygotsky believed there would be significant cultural differences. In fact both get some support from later research. Some features of development appear universal whereas others show distinct cultural variations.
Given his relatively short life Vygotsky himself was unable to adopt and adapt his theory in the way that Piaget was. However, other Russian psychologists did pick up the baton and through the Kharkov School of Psychology continued his research.
Vygotsky’s work was not translated into English until 1962 but quickly became very influential in the West with other developmental psychologists, most notably Jerome Bruner building on his work.
As we shall see in the next section, Vygotsky’s work has been widely applied in education around the World with methods such as reciprocal teaching and dynamic assessment being widely adopted and used.
Scientific?
Although Vygotsky carried out little in the way of scientific or empirical research himself, his detailed writings on specific topics has made it possible for others to check his work and test it in practical settings such as education. As a result there is now a substantial amount of research on topics such as peer tutoring and scaffolding. It is fair to say however, that Vygotsky’s theory can never be as scientifically validated as Piaget’s. Internal processes such as mental functions are not as observable as Piaget’s stages.
Unlike Piaget, there is no mention of stages but instead an underlying assumption that children function and think in similar ways throughout their life. For example there is no mention of how brain maturation during the early years may alter the ability of children to think in more advanced ways. As we shall see with education, young children seem unable to grasp abstract or hypothetical ideas regardless of the amount of scaffolding provided. This suggests that there are qualitative differences between the thinking of young children and older ones. This provides support for Piaget but questions Vygotsky’s views.
Motivation
Vygotsky does not consider the importance of the child’s desire to learn. Schaffer (2004) believes emotional factors such as struggles, frustrations caused by failure and the joys of success are all important factors in the level of motivation experienced by the child.
Vague
Vygotsky did not say what types of social interaction are best for encouraging learning.
Social interactions
These can sometimes be counter-productive. Not all criticisms are useful or well received! Durkin (1995) points out that often advice from parents can serve to make the child even more determined to do things its own way. You’re teenagers… you understand!
Individual differences
Some children, regardless of help given by others, still develop at a slower rate, suggesting that other factors, including genetic must be involved. (Genetic explanations would not have sat comfortably in Soviet Russia!).
Reductionist
Being a social theory it ignores the role of biology in development and in particular the role played by maturation and development of the brain. The later information processing approach to cognitive development was the only one to consider these factors.
Stages?
Some children can still take years to learn some skills despite plenty of social support. In some cases children seem unable to grasp certain concepts until they reach a certain level of maturity. This would seem to lend support more to Piaget’s view of cognitive development occurring in stages and the child being unable to learn some concepts, for example abtract, until a certain age.
Again it is always credit-worthy to note the contribution Vygotsky made to our understanding of child development, how it has filled some of the gaps left by Piaget, and how it has been used in educational policy in the West.
Note although Vygotsky died in 1934 his work wasn’t translated into English until 1962.
Applying Vygotsky to the classroom
Vygotsky's stresses the importance of looking at each child as an individual who learns distinctively. Consequently, the knowledge and skills that are worthwhile learning varies with the individual.
The overall goal of education according to Vygotsky is to "generate and lead development which is the result of social learning through internalisation of culture and social relationships." He repeatedly stressed the importance of past experiences and prior knowledge in making sense of new situations or present experiences. Therefore, all new knowledge and newly introduced skills are greatly influenced by each student's culture, especially their family environment.
Language skills are particularly critical for creating meaning and linking new ideas to past experiences and prior knowledge. According to Vygotsky, internalized skills or psychological tools "are used to gain mastery over one's own behavior and cognition." Primary among these tools is the "development of speech and its relation to thought."
ZPD and Scaffolding
Tasks that are set for the child need to be pitched at the right level. Tasks that are too difficult are outside the child’s ZPD, and regardless of the amount of help in the form of scaffolding, the gap can not be bridged. If the task is too easy the child will not be motivated.
During scaffolding the first step is to build interest and engage the learner. Once the learner is actively participating, the given task should be simplified by breaking it into smaller subtasks. During this task, the teacher needs to keep the learner focused, while concentrating on the most important ideas of the assignment. One of the most integral steps in scaffolding consists of keeping the learner from becoming frustrated. The final task associated with scaffolding involves the teacher modeling possible ways of completing tasks, which the learner can then imitate and eventually internalize.
As Wood et al (1976) put it; if a child is succeeding at a task then adult assistance can be reduced. Similarly if the child is struggling then greater assistance needs to be provided. Wood (1988) studied primary school classes and concluded that it is not possible for teachers to recognise the ZPD of 30 different student by a question and answer technique. Instead, he argues, scaffolding is more appropriate for one on one situations, requiring, as it does the undivided attention of an expert.
Vygotsky’s theory
Much as I admire his theory, I shall warn you at the start that it isn’t as precisely defined and rigorously tested as Piaget’s. It seems to me to be a sprawling collection of ideas rather than a theory, but tied together by an underlying emphasis on culture and the need for others in the developmental process. Picture it if you like as the Woollies pic n mix as opposed to Piaget’s toffee apple of stages to which everything else sticks. Text books and websites disagree about the bits they choose to cover, some preferring the shrimps of semiotics whilst others choose the coconut mushrooms of concept formation. Still others focus only on the essential jelly beans of ZPD. I miss Woollies L
The Little Apprentice
Vygotsky believed that a child's cognitive development cannot be seen as occurring in a social vacuum. In Vygotsky's view, our ability to think and reason by ourselves and for ourselves (what he terms inner speech or verbal thought) is the result of a fundamentally social process. At birth, we are social beings who are capable of interacting with others, but able to do little either practically or intellectually by or for ourselves. Gradually, however, we move towards self-sufficiency and independence, and by participating in social activities, our capabilities become transformed. For Vygotsky, cognitive development involves an active internalisation of problem-solving processes that takes place as a result of mutual interaction between children and those with whom they have regular social contact (initially parents, but later friends and classmates).
Vygotsky's process of internalisation is the reverse of how Piaget (at least initially) saw things. As Rogoff (1990) has noted, Piaget's idea of 'the child as a scientist' is replaced by the idea of 'the child as an apprentice', who acquires the knowledge and skills of a culture through graded collaboration with those who already possess such knowledge and skills. According to Vygotsky (1981):
'Any function in the child's cultural development appears twice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane.'
Tools, functions mediated activity and internalisation
Elementary mental functions.
We all have these when we are born. Many other species also possess the same essential functions. These include memory, attention and sensation. They only show minor development by experience.
Over time we develop other more complex abilities known as:
Higher mental functions.
These include problem solving, mathematical ability, language, abstract thought, planning and the ability to selectively attend.
The development of higher mental functions is mediated by:
Cultural influence.
By cultural influence Vygotsky meant books, teachers, parents, experts or anything capable of passing on the knowledge of previous generations.
If, as Vygotsky suggests, higher mental functions are shaped by culture then different cultures should develop different higher mental functions; Gredler (1992) studied children in Papua New Guinea who learn a counting system of 1 to 29 based on different parts of the body. Clearly this is not going to be good for dealing with large numbers and as a result adults in the culture struggle with problems involving larger numbers.
Vygotsky regarded higher mental functions such as thought, language, mathematical ability and problem solving as the “tools” of the culture in which the child lives. Tools are passed down from the older generations so are culturally mediated.
There is some confusion in the texts as to the difference between a ‘tool’ and a ‘sign.’ According to most texts a ‘tool’ is something that causes a physical change in the World, whereas a ‘sign’ creates an internal, psychological change. However, generally the word ‘tool’ is used now to represent both. Imagine me emailing you to complete a piece of homework. Is that a tool (it causes you to do something physical) or is it a sign (since it creates a psychological state of unhappiness)?
Once passed on these concepts become internalised by the child so essentially become part of the child’s cognitive repertoire. The child can then bring about change itself, not directly but through use of these tools, hence the term mediated activity. The change has been mediated via a tool.
Getting to the point!
The simple example Vygotsky himself provides is how the child learns to acquire to tool of pointing. Initially this begins as an attempt to grasp something out of reach and is directed at the desired object. A parent or local friendly person seeing the child’s attempts will kindly put the object of its desire closer so it can be reached. Gradually the child internalises this grasping behaviour realising it can get results so that it quickly becomes a deliberate action in its own right. The grasp is now weakened so it will have no chance of reaching the object and is instead directed at a local person rather than the object. It has become the tool of pointing.
Tools can be psychological such as language and maths, technological such as laptops and bicycles or values such as velocity and power. However, the most important tool is language:
Language
Language is essential for the communication of knowledge and ideas and as a result is crucial to Vygotsky’s theory. Language is the means by which knowledge acquired by previous generations can be passed onto future generations. It seems that the young of all other species have to start the learning process from scratch. We are told that crocodiles coexisted with dinosaurs 65 million years ago. How far have they developed in that time? What have they achieved? There’s been no crocodile equivalent of Shakespeare, Darwin, Einstein… not even a Fearne Cotton. No great works such as Snapbeth or even A Winter’s Tail! Each new generation of baby crocs has to start afresh, its parents unable to sit it on their lap (?) and pass on their experiences. Humans are different. Each new generation can build upon what its forebears have learned. The accumulated knowledge acquired over hundreds of generations can be passed on within a few years. Paraphrasing Sir Isaac Newton, future generations can stand on the shoulders of giants.
However, we don’t only use language for communication. To understand the theory it is important to understand the role language plays in thinking. In fact thought and language are inseparable. Try to imagine thinking without the use of words.
Carmichael et al 1932 (an oldie but goodie) demonstrated the importance of words in influencing our thinking. He showed participants a picture of a kidney bean and told them it was either a bean or a canoe. When they subsequently were asked to draw what they had seen, the ‘bean’ condition drew an exaggerated picture of a bean whereas the ‘canoe’ groups drew a bean that was longer and thinner with more pronounced sections at the front and back. Click here for a far more detailed account of the Carmichael study.
Vygotsky believed that thought and language develop through a number of stages:
Ages 0 to 2 years
Language and thought develop independently of one another. Children have pre-verbal thought and pre-intellectual speech.
Ages 2 to 7 years
Language has two functions:
- Monitor and direct internal thoughts (inner voice we talk to ourselves with).
- Communicate thoughts to others (talk out loud).
Age 7 onwards
The child distinguishes between the two functions of language. Private language is used for thinking and becomes central to cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that language and thinking developed in parallel to each other. As our ability to use language improves this increase our ability to think and vice versa.
Language is crucial both for thinking and communication. A child that has developed language is better able to understand that other children think differently (intersubjectivity).
Research study: Inner speech (Berk, 1994) Convincing evidence of the important role played by inner speech was reported by Berk (1994). She found that 6-year-olds spent an average of 60% of the time talking to themselves while solving problems in mathematics. Those whose speech contained numerous comments about what needed to be done on the current problem did better at mathematics over the following year. This confirmed Vygotsky's view that self-guiding speech can make it easier for children to direct their actions. Presumably this self-guiding speech made it easier for the children to focus their attention on the task in hand.
Vygotsky argued that private speech diminishes and becomes more internal as children's level of performance improves. Berk (1994) discussed a study in which 4- and 5-year-old children made Lego models in each of three sessions. As predicted by Vygotsky, the children's speech become increasingly internalised from session to session as their model-making performance improved. Thus, as Vygotsky assumed, private speech is of most value to children when they are confronted by novel tasks that they do not fully understand.
Evaluation
The usefulness of Vygotsky's theory of diminishing speech depends on what is meant by “speech”. For example, some children with learning difficulties are unable to speak but can perform quite well on many types of tasks. Children who are born profoundly deaf and whose families are hearing often find speech difficult or impossible to acquire but their intelligence is sometimes unimpaired. It is interesting to speculate whether deaf children of deaf parents who grow up using sign language can use signs as their own private “speech” in the way intended by Vygotsky.
Learning through play (courtesy of Wikipedia)
Through play the child develops abstract meaning separate from the objects in the world which is a critical feature in the development of higher mental functions.
The famous example Vygotsky gives is of a child who wants to ride a horse but can’t. As a child under three, the child would show outward signs of frustration, but around the age of three the child's relationship with the world changes:
"Henceforth play is such that the explanation for it must always be that it is the imaginary, illusory realization of unrealizable desires. Imagination is a new formation that is not present in the consciousness of the very young child, is totally absent in animals, and represents a specifically human form of conscious activity. Like all functions of consciousness, it originally arises from action." (Vygotsky, 1978)
We have all seen children stand astride a stick and pretend they are riding a horse. For Vygotsky the stick is acting as a ‘pivot.’ A pivot is a way a child learns to separate words from the objects they represent. A young child thinks ‘horse’ and can’t imagine anything other than a real horse. Through play sticks can also represent ‘horse.’
As children get older, their reliance on pivots such as sticks, dolls and other toys diminishes. They have internalized these pivots as imagination and abstract concepts through which they can understand the world.
Another aspect of play that Vygotsky referred to was the development of social rules that develop, for example, when children play house and adopt the roles of different family members. Playing at being mum involves obeying the rules of maternal behavior. The child in that role has t over-rule how they want to behave which also involves development of self control.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Scaffolding
‘…what is the zone of proximal development today will be the actual zone of development tomorrow. That is, what a child can do with some assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow.’ (Vygotsky 1978).
The ZPD is the difference between what the child can achieve on its own and what it can achieve with help from others. For learning to occur the adult must provide a challenge that is beyond what the child is capable of, but within its capabilities with help, i.e. within its ZPD. Therefore the child can only reach its full potential with help from others. The help given by adults is referred to as scaffolding. It is important that the child is challenged without experiencing failure.
Goodman and Goodman (1990), writing about how teachers teach in the ZPD, offer five guidelines. They say that teachers should:
1. Interfere as little as possible.
2. Ask a question.
3. Offer a useful hint.
4. Direct attention at an anomaly.
5. Direct attention at an overlooked bit of information.
Research evidence
Moss (1992) found that parents, particularly mothers, provide scaffolding. Moss observed three strategies:
1. Mother instructs the child with strategies it would not otherwise know.
2. Mother encourages child to keep using useful strategies.
3. Mother persuades the child to drop inappropriate strategies.
Conner et al (1997) found that fathers are as good at scaffolding. They also found that children that have received scaffolding show longer-term improvements in skills as well as immediate improvements.
Freund (1990) conducted a study in which children had to decide which items of furniture should be placed in particular houses of a dolls house. Some children were allowed to play with their mother in a similar situation before they attempted it alone (zone of proximal development) whilst others were allowed to work on this by themselves (Piaget's discovery learning). Freund found that those who had previously worked with their mother (ZPD) showed greatest improvement compared with their first attempt at the task. The conclusion being that guided learning within the ZPD led to greater understanding/performance than working alone (discovery learning).
Moss and Strayer (1990) also suggest that mothers of gifted children tend to encourage the use of metacognitive strategies more than mothers of children within the normal range of
Development. What is more, Bouffard-Bouchard and Gagne´ -Dupuis (1994) say that the educational practices of mothers with low social status are less directed towards stimulating their children’s zone of proximal development than those displayed by mothers with high social status, and that this influences pre-school children’s cognitive development.
Many researchers e.g. Wertsch (1985) show that more successful adult scaffolders adapt their scaffolding strategies to both their children’s development and the difficulty of the task. Wertsch (1985) reported that adults adjust their speech to children’s language skills, and that when they use demanding cognitive expressions that are beyond the child’s current skills they tend to be ineffective.
Woods et al (1976) also emphasises this tailoring of support. They watched mothers teaching their young children to construct a 3D pyramid. Those showing ‘sensitive guidance’ were most successful. Too much help led to frustration and too little to lack of motivation. A Goldilocks situation: level of help needs to be just right J
Evaluation
Vygotsky’s greatest contribution was in recognising the importance of social interaction in the cognitive development of children. Whereas Piaget predicts that all children, regardless of culture, should make the same progression through his stages, Vygotsky believed there would be significant cultural differences. In fact both get some support from later research. Some features of development appear universal whereas others show distinct cultural variations.
Given his relatively short life Vygotsky himself was unable to adopt and adapt his theory in the way that Piaget was. However, other Russian psychologists did pick up the baton and through the Kharkov School of Psychology continued his research.
Vygotsky’s work was not translated into English until 1962 but quickly became very influential in the West with other developmental psychologists, most notably Jerome Bruner building on his work.
As we shall see in the next section, Vygotsky’s work has been widely applied in education around the World with methods such as reciprocal teaching and dynamic assessment being widely adopted and used.
Scientific?
Although Vygotsky carried out little in the way of scientific or empirical research himself, his detailed writings on specific topics has made it possible for others to check his work and test it in practical settings such as education. As a result there is now a substantial amount of research on topics such as peer tutoring and scaffolding. It is fair to say however, that Vygotsky’s theory can never be as scientifically validated as Piaget’s. Internal processes such as mental functions are not as observable as Piaget’s stages.
Unlike Piaget, there is no mention of stages but instead an underlying assumption that children function and think in similar ways throughout their life. For example there is no mention of how brain maturation during the early years may alter the ability of children to think in more advanced ways. As we shall see with education, young children seem unable to grasp abstract or hypothetical ideas regardless of the amount of scaffolding provided. This suggests that there are qualitative differences between the thinking of young children and older ones. This provides support for Piaget but questions Vygotsky’s views.
Motivation
Vygotsky does not consider the importance of the child’s desire to learn. Schaffer (2004) believes emotional factors such as struggles, frustrations caused by failure and the joys of success are all important factors in the level of motivation experienced by the child.
Vague
Vygotsky did not say what types of social interaction are best for encouraging learning.
Social interactions
These can sometimes be counter-productive. Not all criticisms are useful or well received! Durkin (1995) points out that often advice from parents can serve to make the child even more determined to do things its own way. You’re teenagers… you understand!
Individual differences
Some children, regardless of help given by others, still develop at a slower rate, suggesting that other factors, including genetic must be involved. (Genetic explanations would not have sat comfortably in Soviet Russia!).
Reductionist
Being a social theory it ignores the role of biology in development and in particular the role played by maturation and development of the brain. The later information processing approach to cognitive development was the only one to consider these factors.
Stages?
Some children can still take years to learn some skills despite plenty of social support. In some cases children seem unable to grasp certain concepts until they reach a certain level of maturity. This would seem to lend support more to Piaget’s view of cognitive development occurring in stages and the child being unable to learn some concepts, for example abtract, until a certain age.
Again it is always credit-worthy to note the contribution Vygotsky made to our understanding of child development, how it has filled some of the gaps left by Piaget, and how it has been used in educational policy in the West.
Note although Vygotsky died in 1934 his work wasn’t translated into English until 1962.
Applying Vygotsky to the classroom
Vygotsky's stresses the importance of looking at each child as an individual who learns distinctively. Consequently, the knowledge and skills that are worthwhile learning varies with the individual.
The overall goal of education according to Vygotsky is to "generate and lead development which is the result of social learning through internalisation of culture and social relationships." He repeatedly stressed the importance of past experiences and prior knowledge in making sense of new situations or present experiences. Therefore, all new knowledge and newly introduced skills are greatly influenced by each student's culture, especially their family environment.
Language skills are particularly critical for creating meaning and linking new ideas to past experiences and prior knowledge. According to Vygotsky, internalized skills or psychological tools "are used to gain mastery over one's own behavior and cognition." Primary among these tools is the "development of speech and its relation to thought."
ZPD and Scaffolding
Tasks that are set for the child need to be pitched at the right level. Tasks that are too difficult are outside the child’s ZPD, and regardless of the amount of help in the form of scaffolding, the gap can not be bridged. If the task is too easy the child will not be motivated.
During scaffolding the first step is to build interest and engage the learner. Once the learner is actively participating, the given task should be simplified by breaking it into smaller subtasks. During this task, the teacher needs to keep the learner focused, while concentrating on the most important ideas of the assignment. One of the most integral steps in scaffolding consists of keeping the learner from becoming frustrated. The final task associated with scaffolding involves the teacher modeling possible ways of completing tasks, which the learner can then imitate and eventually internalize.
As Wood et al (1976) put it; if a child is succeeding at a task then adult assistance can be reduced. Similarly if the child is struggling then greater assistance needs to be provided. Wood (1988) studied primary school classes and concluded that it is not possible for teachers to recognise the ZPD of 30 different student by a question and answer technique. Instead, he argues, scaffolding is more appropriate for one on one situations, requiring, as it does the undivided attention of an expert.
|
Bliss et al (1996) looked at the ways scaffolding was being used in the science classes of 13 London Junior schools (ages 7-11). The results showed that scaffolding was not being used effectively and reported what they described as ‘pseudo-scaffolding.’
Crossing the ZPD is essential to Vygotsk’s theory. This can only be accomplished with help from MKOs (more knowledgeable others) MKOs provide the scaffolding or support needed. I picture teachers and other MKOs as a ‘ferrymen’ transporting the child from one bank to the next. |
|
Role of the teacher
In Vygotsky's view, the teacher has the "task of guiding and directing the child's activity." Children can then solve novel problems "on the basis of a model they has been shown in class." In other words, children learn by solving problems with the help of the teacher, who models processes for them in a classroom environment that is directed by the teacher. In essence, "the child imitates the teacher through a process of re-creating previous classroom collaboration."
Peer tutoring and the MKO
Vygotsky defined those who are to teach as the "More Knowledgeable Other." The MKO is anyone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, particularly in regards to a specific task, concept or process. Traditionally the MKO is thought of as a teacher or an older adult. However, this is not always the case. Other possibilities for the MKO could be a peer, sibling, a younger person, or even a computer. The key to MKO is that they must have more knowledge about the topic being learned than the learner does. Teachers or more capable peers can raise the student's competence through the zone of proximal development (ZPD).
Mixed ability groupings are essential. In the classroom situation the more advanced child can act as tutor and since he/she is of similar age they should have a good understanding of the tutees situation and should also be working in the same ZPD.
Tudge (1993) found that the best peer tutors are those who are significantly ahead of their tutees. However, if the tutor lacks confidence or fails to provide the necessary scaffolding then the tutoring is ineffective.
Barnier (1989) found that the performance of 6 to 7 year olds on various spatial tasks was significantly improved when they were tutored by 7 to 8 year olds. Ellis and Gauvain (1992) found cross cultural support for peer tutoring when they compared native North American Navahos with ‘Euro-American’ children. Both benefited from peer tutoring even though the methods used by the two cultures were very different. The ‘Euro-Americans’ tended to give more spoken instructions and were generally less patient with their tutees.
Peer tutoring is a vital element in Shayer and Adey’s CASE project. After being introduced to a task and provided with cognitive dissonance (disequilibrium), the students are asked to work in groups. The idea being that the more able will be able to encourage the less able.
Schools and Society
Not only does Vygotsky see the role of the teacher as being vital he also views schools in a similar way. For Vygotsky, society (and therefore social interaction) happens in schools.
"Schools are incorporated into the larger society and have that as their context, so that some of their activity settings are determined by this larger contextuality."
For Vygotsky the classroom is also a social organization that is representative of the larger social community ... it is the social organisation ... that is the agent for change in the individual
Schools are mini-societies
Research supporting Vygotsky in the classroom
Nichols (1996): Does cooperative group work improve motivation?
Nichols wanted to find out if children working in a group (Vygotsky) would learn more effectively than if they were working alone in a more traditional way.
81 American high school children were randomly allocated to one of three groups (27 in each group) for the duration of an eighteen week term (sorry semester!).
Note: the cooperative group work involved students being split into small groups and being asked to complete problem solving activities as a team.
Motivation was assessed using a number of measures including patience, persistence and desire to please teachers and parents. It was found that groups 1 and 2 showed significantly higher levels of motivation than group 3. Additionally the motivation levels of groups 1 and 2 were higher when they were in the 9 week phase of group work than in the more traditional teaching environment.
This is an interesting study since it supports Vygotsky’s view on the importance of group work, social interaction and peer tutoring. However, it also seems to answer some of the critics of Vygotsky who claim he didn’t consider the child’s motivation to learn as a variable in determining its performance.
KEEP (Kamemeha Elementary Education Programme)
Based in Hawaii (hence Kamemeha I assume) this was a project designed to improve the lot of children from ethnic minorities who were seen at risk of developing poor language skills. The programme was based on Vygotskyan principles of scaffolding, peer tutoring (cooperative learning) and frequent ZPD assessment by a series of tests. It followed the progress of 200 at-risk students in 60 classes. It found that children following KEEP performed significantly better than controls.
In a follow up the specially trained KEEP teachers spread their nets further. In an experiment, children were randomly allocated to either traditional teaching classes or to KEEP. After one year the KEEP students were reading significantly better than the non-KEEP control. In a ten year follow up study researchers found a significant correlation between number of years spent in KEEP classes and their standard of reading as well as overall academic achievement. Vygotskyan principles certainly seem to be effective.
However, it is important that Vygotsky’s methods are not simply shoe-horned into existing classroom practice. Success seems based on the idea that his principles are used to develop new curricula and to employ teachers specially trained in use of his methods.
Piaget and Vygotsky: are they so different in practice?
Text books and indeed this current booklet tend to emphasise the difference between the two theories and clearly, from a theoretical standpoint they are quite different. However, when applied to education there are many overlaps. Both recognize the importance of group work, active learning and individual attention from the teacher. Beverage (1997) believes that many of the differences have been exaggerated by people with particular (perhaps political and ideological) “axes to grind.”
Overall it seems that Piaget is seen as more mainstream and in the UK has been influential in general educational practice (curricula etc). Vygotsky on the other hand is most noticeable in specific initiatives and intervention programmes, for example KEEP and CASE.
Practical applications of Vygotsky’s work:
Several instructional programs were developed on the basis of the notion of ZPD including reciprocal teaching and dynamic assessment.
ZPD has been implemented as a measurable concept in the reading software “Accelerated Reader.” The developers of Accelerated Reader describe it as "the level of difficulty [of a book] that is neither too hard nor too easy, and is the level at which optimal learning takes place" (Renaissance Learning, 2007). The STAR Reading software suggests a ZPD level, or it can be determined from other standardized tests. The company claims that students need to read books that are not too easy, so as to avoid boredom, and not too hard, so as to avoid frustration. This range of book difficulty, so claimed, helps to improve vocabulary and other reading skills.
Cognitive apprenticeship
Is a system of cognitive modelling where the tutor will explain step by step and thought by thought what they are doing whilst completing a task. The apprentice then imitates this behaviour and thinking process whilst being observed by the tutor. At crucial stages the tutor may intervene to provide additional support or assistance (scaffolding). As the tutee becomes more expert at completing the task the level of support provided can be reduced.
Special needs
Vygotsky was well ahead of his time in recognising the importance of educating children with various learning impairments. He distinguished between ‘primary defects’ (genetic or organic) and ‘secondary defects’ (due to distortions of higher mental functions caused by social factors). When dealing with these special needs the teacher needs to be aware that it is the social consequences that are the most important. For example when dealing with a child that is blind, recognise that their condition is genetic but address how this condition is affecting their ability to interact with others since this ultimately determines what the child is able to learn. To this end he believed that even severely handicapped children should be educated in the mainstream (i.e. attend ‘normal’ schools). In the 1920s and 1930s this was almost unheard of but is far more likely to be practised today. Again signs of how ahead of his time Vygotsky was. He noted that "a child whose development is impeded by a disability is not simply a child less developed than his peers; rather, he has developed differently.
In fact it has been suggested that he was so far ahead of his time the rest of psychology still hasn’t caught up. For example Vygotsky believed that social and cognitive development were so interwoven that they were essentially one and the same thing.
Moral development
Recently there have been attempts to use Vygotsky’s theory to help in our understanding of moral development. In his book ‘Educational Psychology’ not translated into English until 1997, Vygotsky does include one chapter on moral development. Again, as we’ll see later, Piaget came up with a more detailed theory of moral development himself.
CASE (Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education
I thought it would be a good idea to include a page on this particular initiative since it is relevant to the application of Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner to the education process and as already been mentioned a few times.
Additionally, I carried out my research project into the popularity of CASE as part of my PGCE since I’d just spent a few months teaching it to a group of year eight girls.
The CASE program was developed by Shayer and Adey at Kings College London during the 1980s. Its main aim is to help children in the transition from concrete operational thinking to formal operational thinking, hence its target year groups are years seven and eight (11 and 12 year olds). It does this with a series of 30 specifically designed lessons that can either be taught over one year or two. Topics covered include; control of variables, ratio and proportion, equilibrium, probability, classification and formal models. Although the content of the lessons is different, their basic structure is similar as they borrow and incorporate a combination of Piagetian and Vygotskyian techniques.
As already mentioned their basic aim is to help move children from Concrete to Formal thinking so influence of Piaget is at the very core of the process. However, the very idea of speeding up this transfer via intervention would appear alien to Piaget’s philosophy. The researchers therefore borrow Vygotskyan ideas to achieve this.
Lesson structure
The CASE activities are designed to familiarise pupils with the language and apparatus, (concrete preparation); provide 'events' which cause the pupils to pause, wonder and think again, (cognitive conflict or disequilibrium); encourage the pupils to reflect on their own thinking processes, (metacognition); and show how this thinking can be applied in many contexts, (bridging). These features are described in detail by Adey P and Shayer M (1994) and are referred to as the 'Five Pillars of CASE wisdom.’ In addition to these I shall also consider the role of the teacher in delivering the course and the nature of the activities set using the example of a lesson on ‘density.’
Concrete preparation
The pupils either carry out a familiar task or witness a simple demonstration. In the case of density they would watch the teacher weigh jars and then predict whether they would sink or float. At this stage no surprises, the pupils feel reassured, almost lulled into a false sense of security. The word ‘concrete’ clearly suggests the influence of Piaget.
Disequilibrium (cognitive conflict)
Suddenly there is something unexpected. An event designed to be just beyond their current level of understanding (just across the river from their ZPD if you will). In the case of density, the largest and heaviest jar so far, they all predict it’s going to sink but instead it bobs up and down in the trough! This is clearly based on Piaget’s idea of the importance of disequilibrium motivating the learning process. This leads to either assimilation or accommodation.
Group work (peer mentoring)
The main focus of the lesson. The pupils work in mixed ability groups and complete a series of tasks designed to help them across the ZPD. The tasks get more difficult as the lesson progresses. Here we see the influence of Vygotsky and his emphasis on cooperative learning using MKOs in the peer mentoring role.
Role of the teacher
Very much as Piaget would hope, the teacher remains hands off. Their role is to circulate, listen, determine the level of thinking and crucially only to intervene when absolutely necessary. This scaffolding should also be tailored and should never involve the providing of answers. Instead there should be probing questions or perhaps the occasional clue. The children should be supported in reaching the answer themselves. Clearly this process borrows heavily from Piaget and Vygotsky. Discovery learning (both), active learning (both) with weaker helping the more able (Vygotsky).
Metacognition
The teacher should make the pupils familiar with their own thinking. They should be encouraged to talk out loud about how they have solved each stage in the puzzle and discuss the thinking behind their successes.
Bridging
The pupils are now encouraged to ground their new thinking with familiar examples, for example ships that weigh thousands of tonnes but can still float, cream floating on milk and paraffin on water.
Extension
Shayer and Adey also provide opportunities for some pupils to take their new understanding a stage further, in the case of density calculations involving weight and volume.
Does it work?
Research does suggest an improvement in scientific reasoning. This is most notable at GCSE were Shayer and Adey report an average improvement of one grade in children who completed CASE in years seven and eight. There also appears to be knock-on effects in other subjects with significant improvements on GCSE maths and English too. This led Adey (1993) to conclude:
‘It is very rare to see such ‘transfer’ of learning to other subjects in educational research which suggests that something very deep is happening. Cognitive Acceleration appears to ‘teach intelligence’.
Moral development
Moral development is the way in which children learn the difference between right and wrong. It may appear incongruous in a topic on 'cognitive development', but as we shall see the main theorists, most notably Lawrence Kohlberg and Jean Piaget, assume morality to arise, Phoenix-like, from cognitive development. For each of them, the highest levels of moral reasoning can only be achieved when the appropriate highest levels of cognitive development have been reached.
As with most concepts in Psychology there is some disagreement about what morality is but a perusal through any text will give you definitions a plenty. There is no need to get bogged down with this since hopefully you all have some concept of morality and you won’t be asked to define it in an examination.
An interesting aside from my favourite living psychologist, Professor Jonathan Haidt: Consider the case of
Julie and Mark are sister and brother. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie is already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other.
We are immediately morally repulsed by this story. The point Haidt goes on to make is that we have difficulty explaing why we are so offended. Moral judgements seem often to come from an unconscious source. We make a snap ‘affective valance’ such as ‘right,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ We don’t go looking for it, it just happens. Having stated our feelings we have to use our conscious mind to justify the decision we’ve made, and often we struggle. When asked why we find the case of Julie and Mark so dsigusting we end up with ‘it just is!’
Lawrence Kohlberg
Introduction
This is the most influential theory of moral development and, unlike Piaget's, it has undergone a number of revisions over the years. Kohlberg sees moral development as a more gradual process than Piaget, but still one that progresses through set stages. Also like Piaget, he believed that it was the thinking behind moral judgements that was crucial in determining the child's level. For example, most children believe that it is wrong to break the law, however, the reasons they give are indicative of their reasoning, so 'because it is wrong' would suggest a low level of moral development. As already mentioned in the bit on Piaget, Kohlberg sees cognitive development as a crucial precursor to moral development.
Methods
Kohlberg developed his theory by reading stories to children. These he referred to as moral dilemmas.
In Vygotsky's view, the teacher has the "task of guiding and directing the child's activity." Children can then solve novel problems "on the basis of a model they has been shown in class." In other words, children learn by solving problems with the help of the teacher, who models processes for them in a classroom environment that is directed by the teacher. In essence, "the child imitates the teacher through a process of re-creating previous classroom collaboration."
Peer tutoring and the MKO
Vygotsky defined those who are to teach as the "More Knowledgeable Other." The MKO is anyone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner, particularly in regards to a specific task, concept or process. Traditionally the MKO is thought of as a teacher or an older adult. However, this is not always the case. Other possibilities for the MKO could be a peer, sibling, a younger person, or even a computer. The key to MKO is that they must have more knowledge about the topic being learned than the learner does. Teachers or more capable peers can raise the student's competence through the zone of proximal development (ZPD).
Mixed ability groupings are essential. In the classroom situation the more advanced child can act as tutor and since he/she is of similar age they should have a good understanding of the tutees situation and should also be working in the same ZPD.
Tudge (1993) found that the best peer tutors are those who are significantly ahead of their tutees. However, if the tutor lacks confidence or fails to provide the necessary scaffolding then the tutoring is ineffective.
Barnier (1989) found that the performance of 6 to 7 year olds on various spatial tasks was significantly improved when they were tutored by 7 to 8 year olds. Ellis and Gauvain (1992) found cross cultural support for peer tutoring when they compared native North American Navahos with ‘Euro-American’ children. Both benefited from peer tutoring even though the methods used by the two cultures were very different. The ‘Euro-Americans’ tended to give more spoken instructions and were generally less patient with their tutees.
Peer tutoring is a vital element in Shayer and Adey’s CASE project. After being introduced to a task and provided with cognitive dissonance (disequilibrium), the students are asked to work in groups. The idea being that the more able will be able to encourage the less able.
Schools and Society
Not only does Vygotsky see the role of the teacher as being vital he also views schools in a similar way. For Vygotsky, society (and therefore social interaction) happens in schools.
"Schools are incorporated into the larger society and have that as their context, so that some of their activity settings are determined by this larger contextuality."
For Vygotsky the classroom is also a social organization that is representative of the larger social community ... it is the social organisation ... that is the agent for change in the individual
Schools are mini-societies
Research supporting Vygotsky in the classroom
Nichols (1996): Does cooperative group work improve motivation?
Nichols wanted to find out if children working in a group (Vygotsky) would learn more effectively than if they were working alone in a more traditional way.
81 American high school children were randomly allocated to one of three groups (27 in each group) for the duration of an eighteen week term (sorry semester!).
- Group 1: 9 weeks of cooperative group work followed by 9 weeks of traditional teaching
- Group 2: 9 weeks of traditional teaching followed by 9 weeks of cooperative group work
- Group 3: 18 weeks of traditional teaching
Note: the cooperative group work involved students being split into small groups and being asked to complete problem solving activities as a team.
Motivation was assessed using a number of measures including patience, persistence and desire to please teachers and parents. It was found that groups 1 and 2 showed significantly higher levels of motivation than group 3. Additionally the motivation levels of groups 1 and 2 were higher when they were in the 9 week phase of group work than in the more traditional teaching environment.
This is an interesting study since it supports Vygotsky’s view on the importance of group work, social interaction and peer tutoring. However, it also seems to answer some of the critics of Vygotsky who claim he didn’t consider the child’s motivation to learn as a variable in determining its performance.
KEEP (Kamemeha Elementary Education Programme)
Based in Hawaii (hence Kamemeha I assume) this was a project designed to improve the lot of children from ethnic minorities who were seen at risk of developing poor language skills. The programme was based on Vygotskyan principles of scaffolding, peer tutoring (cooperative learning) and frequent ZPD assessment by a series of tests. It followed the progress of 200 at-risk students in 60 classes. It found that children following KEEP performed significantly better than controls.
In a follow up the specially trained KEEP teachers spread their nets further. In an experiment, children were randomly allocated to either traditional teaching classes or to KEEP. After one year the KEEP students were reading significantly better than the non-KEEP control. In a ten year follow up study researchers found a significant correlation between number of years spent in KEEP classes and their standard of reading as well as overall academic achievement. Vygotskyan principles certainly seem to be effective.
However, it is important that Vygotsky’s methods are not simply shoe-horned into existing classroom practice. Success seems based on the idea that his principles are used to develop new curricula and to employ teachers specially trained in use of his methods.
Piaget and Vygotsky: are they so different in practice?
Text books and indeed this current booklet tend to emphasise the difference between the two theories and clearly, from a theoretical standpoint they are quite different. However, when applied to education there are many overlaps. Both recognize the importance of group work, active learning and individual attention from the teacher. Beverage (1997) believes that many of the differences have been exaggerated by people with particular (perhaps political and ideological) “axes to grind.”
Overall it seems that Piaget is seen as more mainstream and in the UK has been influential in general educational practice (curricula etc). Vygotsky on the other hand is most noticeable in specific initiatives and intervention programmes, for example KEEP and CASE.
Practical applications of Vygotsky’s work:
Several instructional programs were developed on the basis of the notion of ZPD including reciprocal teaching and dynamic assessment.
ZPD has been implemented as a measurable concept in the reading software “Accelerated Reader.” The developers of Accelerated Reader describe it as "the level of difficulty [of a book] that is neither too hard nor too easy, and is the level at which optimal learning takes place" (Renaissance Learning, 2007). The STAR Reading software suggests a ZPD level, or it can be determined from other standardized tests. The company claims that students need to read books that are not too easy, so as to avoid boredom, and not too hard, so as to avoid frustration. This range of book difficulty, so claimed, helps to improve vocabulary and other reading skills.
Cognitive apprenticeship
Is a system of cognitive modelling where the tutor will explain step by step and thought by thought what they are doing whilst completing a task. The apprentice then imitates this behaviour and thinking process whilst being observed by the tutor. At crucial stages the tutor may intervene to provide additional support or assistance (scaffolding). As the tutee becomes more expert at completing the task the level of support provided can be reduced.
Special needs
Vygotsky was well ahead of his time in recognising the importance of educating children with various learning impairments. He distinguished between ‘primary defects’ (genetic or organic) and ‘secondary defects’ (due to distortions of higher mental functions caused by social factors). When dealing with these special needs the teacher needs to be aware that it is the social consequences that are the most important. For example when dealing with a child that is blind, recognise that their condition is genetic but address how this condition is affecting their ability to interact with others since this ultimately determines what the child is able to learn. To this end he believed that even severely handicapped children should be educated in the mainstream (i.e. attend ‘normal’ schools). In the 1920s and 1930s this was almost unheard of but is far more likely to be practised today. Again signs of how ahead of his time Vygotsky was. He noted that "a child whose development is impeded by a disability is not simply a child less developed than his peers; rather, he has developed differently.
In fact it has been suggested that he was so far ahead of his time the rest of psychology still hasn’t caught up. For example Vygotsky believed that social and cognitive development were so interwoven that they were essentially one and the same thing.
Moral development
Recently there have been attempts to use Vygotsky’s theory to help in our understanding of moral development. In his book ‘Educational Psychology’ not translated into English until 1997, Vygotsky does include one chapter on moral development. Again, as we’ll see later, Piaget came up with a more detailed theory of moral development himself.
CASE (Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education
I thought it would be a good idea to include a page on this particular initiative since it is relevant to the application of Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner to the education process and as already been mentioned a few times.
Additionally, I carried out my research project into the popularity of CASE as part of my PGCE since I’d just spent a few months teaching it to a group of year eight girls.
The CASE program was developed by Shayer and Adey at Kings College London during the 1980s. Its main aim is to help children in the transition from concrete operational thinking to formal operational thinking, hence its target year groups are years seven and eight (11 and 12 year olds). It does this with a series of 30 specifically designed lessons that can either be taught over one year or two. Topics covered include; control of variables, ratio and proportion, equilibrium, probability, classification and formal models. Although the content of the lessons is different, their basic structure is similar as they borrow and incorporate a combination of Piagetian and Vygotskyian techniques.
As already mentioned their basic aim is to help move children from Concrete to Formal thinking so influence of Piaget is at the very core of the process. However, the very idea of speeding up this transfer via intervention would appear alien to Piaget’s philosophy. The researchers therefore borrow Vygotskyan ideas to achieve this.
Lesson structure
The CASE activities are designed to familiarise pupils with the language and apparatus, (concrete preparation); provide 'events' which cause the pupils to pause, wonder and think again, (cognitive conflict or disequilibrium); encourage the pupils to reflect on their own thinking processes, (metacognition); and show how this thinking can be applied in many contexts, (bridging). These features are described in detail by Adey P and Shayer M (1994) and are referred to as the 'Five Pillars of CASE wisdom.’ In addition to these I shall also consider the role of the teacher in delivering the course and the nature of the activities set using the example of a lesson on ‘density.’
Concrete preparation
The pupils either carry out a familiar task or witness a simple demonstration. In the case of density they would watch the teacher weigh jars and then predict whether they would sink or float. At this stage no surprises, the pupils feel reassured, almost lulled into a false sense of security. The word ‘concrete’ clearly suggests the influence of Piaget.
Disequilibrium (cognitive conflict)
Suddenly there is something unexpected. An event designed to be just beyond their current level of understanding (just across the river from their ZPD if you will). In the case of density, the largest and heaviest jar so far, they all predict it’s going to sink but instead it bobs up and down in the trough! This is clearly based on Piaget’s idea of the importance of disequilibrium motivating the learning process. This leads to either assimilation or accommodation.
Group work (peer mentoring)
The main focus of the lesson. The pupils work in mixed ability groups and complete a series of tasks designed to help them across the ZPD. The tasks get more difficult as the lesson progresses. Here we see the influence of Vygotsky and his emphasis on cooperative learning using MKOs in the peer mentoring role.
Role of the teacher
Very much as Piaget would hope, the teacher remains hands off. Their role is to circulate, listen, determine the level of thinking and crucially only to intervene when absolutely necessary. This scaffolding should also be tailored and should never involve the providing of answers. Instead there should be probing questions or perhaps the occasional clue. The children should be supported in reaching the answer themselves. Clearly this process borrows heavily from Piaget and Vygotsky. Discovery learning (both), active learning (both) with weaker helping the more able (Vygotsky).
Metacognition
The teacher should make the pupils familiar with their own thinking. They should be encouraged to talk out loud about how they have solved each stage in the puzzle and discuss the thinking behind their successes.
Bridging
The pupils are now encouraged to ground their new thinking with familiar examples, for example ships that weigh thousands of tonnes but can still float, cream floating on milk and paraffin on water.
Extension
Shayer and Adey also provide opportunities for some pupils to take their new understanding a stage further, in the case of density calculations involving weight and volume.
Does it work?
Research does suggest an improvement in scientific reasoning. This is most notable at GCSE were Shayer and Adey report an average improvement of one grade in children who completed CASE in years seven and eight. There also appears to be knock-on effects in other subjects with significant improvements on GCSE maths and English too. This led Adey (1993) to conclude:
‘It is very rare to see such ‘transfer’ of learning to other subjects in educational research which suggests that something very deep is happening. Cognitive Acceleration appears to ‘teach intelligence’.
Moral development
Moral development is the way in which children learn the difference between right and wrong. It may appear incongruous in a topic on 'cognitive development', but as we shall see the main theorists, most notably Lawrence Kohlberg and Jean Piaget, assume morality to arise, Phoenix-like, from cognitive development. For each of them, the highest levels of moral reasoning can only be achieved when the appropriate highest levels of cognitive development have been reached.
As with most concepts in Psychology there is some disagreement about what morality is but a perusal through any text will give you definitions a plenty. There is no need to get bogged down with this since hopefully you all have some concept of morality and you won’t be asked to define it in an examination.
An interesting aside from my favourite living psychologist, Professor Jonathan Haidt: Consider the case of
Julie and Mark are sister and brother. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie is already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other.
We are immediately morally repulsed by this story. The point Haidt goes on to make is that we have difficulty explaing why we are so offended. Moral judgements seem often to come from an unconscious source. We make a snap ‘affective valance’ such as ‘right,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ We don’t go looking for it, it just happens. Having stated our feelings we have to use our conscious mind to justify the decision we’ve made, and often we struggle. When asked why we find the case of Julie and Mark so dsigusting we end up with ‘it just is!’
Lawrence Kohlberg
Introduction
This is the most influential theory of moral development and, unlike Piaget's, it has undergone a number of revisions over the years. Kohlberg sees moral development as a more gradual process than Piaget, but still one that progresses through set stages. Also like Piaget, he believed that it was the thinking behind moral judgements that was crucial in determining the child's level. For example, most children believe that it is wrong to break the law, however, the reasons they give are indicative of their reasoning, so 'because it is wrong' would suggest a low level of moral development. As already mentioned in the bit on Piaget, Kohlberg sees cognitive development as a crucial precursor to moral development.
Methods
Kohlberg developed his theory by reading stories to children. These he referred to as moral dilemmas.
|
The classic is the story of Heinz.
'In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together $1000 which is half what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said 'No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.' So Heinz got desperate and broke intothe man's store to steal the drug for his wife.' |
|
Following the story Kohlberg would ask questions:
· Should Heinz steal the drug?
· Why or why not?
· Does he have a duty or obligation to steal it?
· Should he steal the drug if he does not love his wife?
· Should he steal for a stranger?
· It is illegal, is it morally wrong?
The research was carried out on 72 boys from Chicago, aged 10, 13 and 16. The longitudinal study began in 1955 and lasted for 26 years with the boys being tested at intervals in that time. The final results were published by Colby et al 1n 1983.
Findings
Kohlberg concluded that there are three levels of moral development; Pre-conventional, Conventional and Post-conventional. Each of these consists of two stages, giving six stages in all.
The table below outlines the 3 levels and 6 stages of Kohlberg’s theory. Realistically you are unlikely to remember this in every detail however the three levels are not difficult; conventional in the middle, ‘pre’ before it and ‘post’ after it. The last column contains lots of detail but try and memorize the overall pattern, for example the first stage is basic, right and wrong depends upon what we are punished for. Later the child tries to please others with its behaviour and the last two stages consider much wider issues such as personal values and moral principles.
· Should Heinz steal the drug?
· Why or why not?
· Does he have a duty or obligation to steal it?
· Should he steal the drug if he does not love his wife?
· Should he steal for a stranger?
· It is illegal, is it morally wrong?
The research was carried out on 72 boys from Chicago, aged 10, 13 and 16. The longitudinal study began in 1955 and lasted for 26 years with the boys being tested at intervals in that time. The final results were published by Colby et al 1n 1983.
Findings
Kohlberg concluded that there are three levels of moral development; Pre-conventional, Conventional and Post-conventional. Each of these consists of two stages, giving six stages in all.
The table below outlines the 3 levels and 6 stages of Kohlberg’s theory. Realistically you are unlikely to remember this in every detail however the three levels are not difficult; conventional in the middle, ‘pre’ before it and ‘post’ after it. The last column contains lots of detail but try and memorize the overall pattern, for example the first stage is basic, right and wrong depends upon what we are punished for. Later the child tries to please others with its behaviour and the last two stages consider much wider issues such as personal values and moral principles.
Evaluation of the stages
There is widespread support for the first five stages of development and in the order that Kohlberg suggested. Kohlberg himself folowed up his original study every 2 to 5 years and found that progression in morality does occur in line with his predictions.
Snarey (1987) carried out a meta analysis of 45 studies in 27 different cultures and found 'striking support for Kohlberg's first four stages.' Fodor (1972) found, just as Kohlberg would have suggested, that juvenile delinquents operate on a lower stage of moral development than non-delinquents of the same age.
If our progression through the stages is biologically determined, as Kohlberg suggests, then all cultures would presumably progress at the same rate. There is some research by Kohlberg himself that seems to question this. In 1969 he carried out similar research in other countries, Britain, Mexico, Turkey, Yucatan and Taiwan and although he found the same order of progression, also found that more industrialised cultures progress faster. This would support the view that culture and personal experience also play a crucial role in the development of moral thinking.
Evaluation of methods
Kohlberg, in his use of dilemmas is only measuring the childs attitudes and ideas towards morality. As I’m sure you all realise the way we say we’ll behave, or the manner in which we expect to behave in a given situation isn’t necessarily reflected in reality. To be fair, Kohlberg was aware of this shortcoming and actually tested his contention that generally behaviour did reflect the intention as predicted by the answers they gave to the moral dilemmas.
On a similar point, the dilemmas are often outside the child's everyday experience so may not fully understand the questions. Compare this to Piaget’s work on cognitive development (marbles and breaking cups). Similarly, when we look at Eisenberg’s theory, we will see that she used far more familiar dilemmas.
If you look at stages 5 and 6 there appears to be little separating them. In practice it has proved difficult to distinguish the two stages, (Colby 1983). Shaver & Strong (1976) were not convinced that many people ever progressed beyond stage 4.
Consistency and reliability
Denton (2005) and others, have tested the relaibility of the tests in assessing stage of moral development. They have found the tests to be generally unreliable over time. Children who are rated as being at level 4 one week may drop to level 2 the next time they’re tested. The most likely reason for such inconsistency is situational variables. There are certain circumstances when we choose to operate on a lower level, perhaps because we’re in a hurry, we don’t like the person involved or perhaps because there’s an element of risk involved in helping. Eisenberg realises this and suggested in her ‘stage theory’ that children move up and down the stages depending on environmental and social factors. Kohlberg on the other hand makes no such allowances in his theory.
Kohlberg’s cultural bias
Crucial is the idea of a collectivist culture in Asian and African countries as opposed to an individualistic culture in Westernised societies. In Piaget's theory the top level is 'autonomous relativism' (based on morality being self-governed and independent). This is a very western concept and would be totally at odds with more collectivist ideas of sharing responsibility and caring for others in society.
Snarey (1985) and others have argued that Kohlberg’s theory suffers from cultural bias, particularly in stage 5. Studies suggest that this does not apply to non-industrialised societies, for example Guatamala, Kenya and New Guinea.
Stage 5 emphasises the moral reasoning of individualistic, Western societies. What Kohlberg appears to be saying in stage 5 is that if the laws of Society conflict with your own individually held beliefs then you have the right to ignore or alter them. This is clearly at odds with non-Western values, particularly those of some Asian and African Societies, that are more collectivist, seeing the group, such as the village or extended family, as being of greater worth than the needs of the individual. This is illustrated by a quotation from a man living in an Israeli Kibbutz. When asked the dilemma of Heinz and whether or not he should have stolen the drug, he replied
'Yes… I think the community should be responsible for controlling this type of situation. The medicine should be made available to all in need: the druggist should not have the right to decide on his own…the whole community or society should have control of the drug.'
Rather than saying that such cultures are morally inferior to Western cultures all that can really be concluded is that they are different and therefore Kohlberg’s later stages are not universal or cross-culturally valid!
In kohlberg's theory, stage 6 is 'universal ethical principles' (based on morality being in accordance with deeply held personal views that override the laws of the nation). Again, as pointed out, this runs counter to Eastern and African Society where collectivist decisions are adhered to. In both cases, top levels of morality are only achieved when the highest levels of cognitive development are reached. Again, cognitive development is seen very much from a Western perspective.
Culture, by definition, is central to any discussion on morality since it considers the norms, values and beliefs of a society. As we saw, Kohlberg's theory is criticised for its western bias. It emphasises individual needs typical of Western teaching and ignores collectivist needs of Asian and African cultures. These are most apparent in the way that Eastern culture is geared to the extended family. As a result people from Eastern culture are unlikely to reach level 3 (post conventional morality) with its emphasis on the individual's chosen morality. This approach is referred to as 'West is best' and is also apparent in Piaget's theory. In both, the top level is seen as best, and in both cases the top levels place the emphasis on the emergence of individual morality.
Lee et al 2001: Modesty and Morality
For Lee’s study to make any sense to the reader coming at it from a Western perspective, it is essential to point out that in Chinese (and other collectivist) cultures, taking the credit for a good deed is not seen as the done thing since it runs counter to the idea that we should all work for the social good. This is clearly in contrast to Western individualistic ideas where we tend not to feel so ashamed or embarassed about admitting to helping others. Lee et al interviewed 120 Chinese children and 108 Canadians between the ages of 7 and 11 years. They were each read four stories:
1. One of a child who had performed a good deed and when questioned admitted to it.
2. One of a child who had performed a good deed and when questioned said someone else had done it.
3. One of a child who had performed a bad deed and when questioned admitted to it.
4. One of a child who had performed a bad deed and when questioned said someone else had done it.
The children were then asked about their feelings towards each of the four situations:
Findings:
In situations were a bad deed had been carried out the findings were similar. Both Canadian and Chinese children both agreed that telling the truth was the best policy.
However, in situations were a good deed had been carried out there were very noticeable differences. Generally speaking the Chinese children rated the children who fibbed about their good deed more positively than those who admitted to it.
Conclusion:
It seems that the Collectivist emphasis on modesty when carrying out good deeds seems, in some cases at least, to overide the need to tell the truth in all sitautions. Lack of modesty is seen as a character flaw and is not to be encouraged. In the West we see it as okay to lie to cover our mistakes or bad deeds but are quite willing to admit to and take the praise for good deeds.
Gender bias
As mentioned above, the theory is androcentric, both in its methodology and its findings. Kohlberg only studied boys (72 aged between 10 and 16) and came to the conclusion that boys have a greater level of moral development. Later research by Carol Gilligan sought to redress the balance and concluded that Kohlberg had only considered one aspect of morality, justice. She suggested that boys may indeed develop further on this aspect, but this is compensated for in girls by their greater understanding of the concept of care. Gilligan next J
Carol Gilligan’s Ethic of Caring
Gilligan (1982) begins from a point of dissatisfaction with Kohlberg's focus on a justice and fairness orientation as the defining feature of moral reasoning. She argues that such an emphasis on justice is a reflection of a more general male bias in both research and theory in developmental psychology. Gilligan points out that because Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning is based upon research which only employed male participants, he may have missed out an equally important set of developmental questions that may be more central to girls’ development.
Methods
Gilligan (1982) interviewed 29 American women aged between 15 and 33 who were considering whether or not to have an abortion. From her research Gilligan suggested three stages of development:
1. Survival and self-interest
Women think mainly about their own needs, this includes behaving in a way that would make them liked, for example keeping the baby so they would be loved by it.
2. Responsibilities and self-sacrifice
Women care about others. For example keeping the baby because of a duty to the child, or aborting because the father was not ready for his duties.
3. Care and relationships
Women take a balanced view and consider the situation as it affects everyone, including themselves.
Gilligan proposes two distinct moral orientations:
- Justice: More prominent in boys and the aspect of morality that Kohlberg and Piaget paid most attention to. The main aspect of justice orientation is not to treat others in an unfair manner.
- Care: More prominent in girls and the aspect of morality studied by Gilligan. The main aspect of care is not to ignore those in need.
Evaluation
Several testable hypotheses can be derived from Gilligan's proposals. For example:
If Gilligan is right then girls should be more likely to use an ethic of caring in defining and deciding moral questions.
If girls tend to respond to moral dilemmas with an ethic of caring rather than justice, we would expect girls' morality to be less than that of boys when measured using Kohlberg's dilemmas, (since these concentrate on justice only).
Neither of these hypotheses has been supported by recent research.
1. Research does not support the idea that girls operate from an orientation of care.
2. There are no consistent sex differences in the level of moral reasoning as measured by Kohlberg's scoring system. Walker (1984) found that girls do not show less mature morality, as predicted by Gilligan's argument. Further, both boys' and girls' reasoning moves through the same stages as described by Kohlberg (e.g. Snarey et al., 1985).
Tong (1992) believes that if gender affects moral reasoning then so must class and ethnicity. Gilligan does not take these into account.
To summarise then, Gilligan seems to be wrong in the specifics of her ideas about sex differences in moral reasoning. However, her criticisms of the biased foundations of psychological theories (e.g. Kohlberg's) and her ideas regarding sex differences in the way males and females relate to situations and relationships have raised important considerations for psychology.
Nancy Eisenberg’s model of Pro-social Reasoning
Remember, the Board can no longer ask a question on Eisneberg! However, her theory is useful for the purposes of evaluation, particularly because it is so very similar in terms of its stages to that of Kohlberg.
Methods
Nancy Eisenberg and her colleagues (e.g. Eisenberg, 1986; Eisenberg et al, 1987) have explored this type of reasoning by presenting dilemmas to children in which they have to have to take on the role of someone else and act either out of self-interest or in the interests of others. For example they take on the role of Mary who is in her way to a birthday party. On her way she comes across a child who has fallen and suffered an injury. The dilemma being, does Mary stop and help and as a result miss the party, or does she ignore the injured person and continue on her way?
Eisenberg proposes a series of five levels of pro-social reasoning.
Age 0 to about 7 (pre-school and primary school children)
1.Hedonistic (self-focused) orientation (pre-school children)
Child only cares only for itself. Any apparently altruistic behaviour is motivated by selfishness for example 'I’ll help them because they’ll help me in future’ (reciprocity), or simply because the child likes the person they are helping. Again compare to Freud’s id oral stage dominated by the selfish id.
2. Needs of others orientation (some pre-school and primary school children)
The needs of others are being recognised but only to a limited extent. The needs of the specific situation are being addressed rather than a genuine sense of empathy. When asked the child offers simple explanations for their positive behaviour without referring to guilt or self reflection.
Age about 7 to adolescence (primary to secondary school children)
3. Stereotyped approval-focused orientation (primary and many high school children)
The child acts in a way that will make them liked. For example lending a helping hand in order to impress others. When asked to explain their behaviour they tend to use stereotyped portrayals of good and bad behaviour.
Adolescence onwards
4a. Empathic orientation (a few high school children and most secondary school children)
The child now starts to show genuine empathy by putting themselves in the shoes of others and begins to report feelings of genuine guilt when considering their own actions.
4b. Transitional level (a few secondary school children)
The child’s actions are now explained in terms of wider social values and the need to protect the dignity and self-esteem of others.
5. Internalised orientation (rare in children)
The child now has a full set of values and understands their responsibilities towards others. They have self-respect that they can only maintain by behaving with a duty of care towards others. The person’s desire to live up to their own set of principles is also a motivating factor.
Comparisons with Kohlberg
Kohlberg is a truer stage theory since he believes that once a child progresses past a stage it does not return to earlier stages. However, Eisenberg disagrees, recognising that there are situations in which we may adopt a lower level of morality, particularly in cases were we decide not to help someone in a particular situation. She also believes that the reasoning of the higher levels is not always superior to that found in lower levels.
Both Eisenberg and Kohlberg (and Piaget obviously) see cognitive development as crucial in guiding moral development. A person’s ability to reason or make moral judgements is in part limited by their ability to think!
Eisenberg believes that ‘primitive empathy’ is to be found in children as young as four. This is clearly at odds with Kohlberg who only recognises empathy much later.
Eisenberg has more recently recognised the importance of emotion in moral development. On seeing a person in need of help a child (and an adult) is more likely to help if the distressed person arouses sympathy (characterised by lower heart rate) rather than distress (higher heart rate). This is seen as a return more to Piagetian thinking and away from Kohlberg.
This model clearly has some parallels with Kohlberg's, however researchers have typically found that children’s reasoning about pro-social dilemmas and their reasoning about Kohlberg's justice and fairness dilemmas, are only moderately correlated. The sequence of stages may be similar, but children seem to move through these stages at different speeds. Eisenberg has found that children’s pro-social reasoning is slightly ahead of their Kohlberg reasoning
Click here for notes on Development of Social Cognition