  |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Development of thinking Piaget Background and introduction Piaget is a towering figure in psychology and widely respected by all, including those who have criticised or adopted 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. 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… lets get on with it.
Schemas and associated concepts Schema: an internal representation of the world. This acts as a framework on which the child bases its knowledge of its 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. Disequilibrium is essential for learning!!!! Adaptation: refers to how a child changes over time as it makes sense of the World in which it lives. 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 or George W Bush doesn’t tie in with its concept of intelligent life form! In these cases new schemata need to be constructed or changes made to existing schemata. So the child develops a schema for cat and one for nepotism in World Politics! 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. 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.
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. It is so called because it senses its environment and carries out movement (motor) to react to it. At this stage that is all the child can do! Features: Egocentricism. The child has no concept of 'self' so is unable to distinguish itself from its environment. Unlike some of the other concepts Piaget believed that egocentricism gradually reduces as the child gets older. Research evidence See three mountains task in preoperational stage. 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. 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!
Pre-Operational Stage (2 to 7 years) Child is still dominated by the external world, rather than it's own thoughts. However, it now forms 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. Features: Egocentricism 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 would be seated at a table with a 3D model of three mountains in front of them. A doll would be placed in various positions around the table and the child shown photos of various views. They would be asked to choose the picture that best fitted the view as seen from the doll. 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. 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! Realism Believing that psychological events, such as dreams, are real. Lack of Conservation
The inability to realise that some things remain unchanged despite looking different. Piaget concentrated on conservation of number and volume. Piaget put this down to the child's inability to pay attention to more than one characteristic of a situation at a time and to its inability to reverse operations in its head (e.g. to visualise 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 preoperational stage.
Evidence against 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.
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! 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.
Concrete Operations 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. Features 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 made possible by the ability to decentre. Conservation of number is first (5 to 6 years), followed by conservation of weight (7 to 8 years) and finally conservation of volume by 11 years of age. Transitivity is only possible with concrete examples. For example 'Jackie is fairer than Sarah, Jackie is darker than Nicola. Who is the darkest?' The concrete operational child would not be able to work this one out mentally, it would require dolls or pictures of the three girls. Similarly A > B > C. This would not be possible since it requires abstract thought rather than concrete examples. Research Evidence Piaget's own studies demonstrated that children in this age group were able to conserve successfully. Other studies have broadly backed Piaget’s findings for this stage, although he has been criticised for failing to consider other cultures. · Jahoda (1983) found that children as young as 9 years old in Zimbabwe could understand abstract economic concepts if they’d worked in their parents’ business. · Price-Williams (1969) showed conservation in children as young as 6 years old who had been raised in pottery making factories.
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! 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. 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 1. 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. 2. It seems many adults never actually reach Piaget’s description of formal thinking. 3. 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.
General criticismsAges and stages· Research often suggests that children reach the stages earlier than Piaget suggested (e.g. Hughes).· Some psychologists believe that only 30% of the population reach formal ops. · Many of the stages overlap (decalage), so much so that it appears deve 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).Other abilities.
Methods.
Demand characteristics
General Favourable commentsMuch 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 Psychologist, 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.
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 sat in rows at desks, with ink wells, would learn 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 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!
· 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. Piaget and Education (simplified).
When to teach Only when the child is ready. I.e. has the child reached the appropriate stage? How to teach Child-centred approach. Learning must be active (discovery learning. The order of teaching has to be determined by development of stages, so curricula are needed. E.g. teach conservation of number before conservation of weight. 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 (intellectual midwife) · adapt lessons to suit the needs of the individual child. · be aware of the child’s stage of development (testing). · provide stimulation through a variety of tasks. · produce/provide resources, · produce disequilibrium, i.e. a scenario that is outside the child’s current understanding. E.g. density. · use concrete examples when describing abstract concepts, e.g. ships floating for density, pumping water around houses for flow of current in a circuit. 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. Evaluation Child (1997) points out that Piaget’s view is ‘pessimistic’ if the teacher is expected to ‘sit back and wait’ for the child to develop. Teachers should, by the right techniques, be able to encourage children to progress through the stages. 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.
Vygotsky For most of his adult life Vygotsky lived in Communist Russia, as a result his work shows definite Marxist influences emphasising the role of social interaction and culture. Vygotsky died of tuberculosis at the age of 38, as a result his theory never went through the later developments that Piaget’s and others were afforded. Elementary mental functions. These are present at birth and include sensation and attention. They only show minor development by experience. Higher mental functions. These include problem solving and thinking. Cultural influence. This is required to take us from Elementary to Higher functions. By cultural influence Vygotsky meant books, teachers, parents, experts or anything capable of passing on the knowledge of previous generations.
Language is essential for the communication of knowledge and ideas and as a result is crucial to Vygotsky’s theory. To understand the theory it is important to understand the role language plays in thinking. In fact the two are closely linked. Try to imagine thinking without the use of words. 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: 1. Monitor and direct internal thoughts (inner voice we talk to ourselves with). 2. Communicate thoughts to others (talk out loud). When children at this age talk out loud to themselves, Vygotsky saw this as a sign that the child is unable to distinguish between the two. 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. Research evidence Berk (1994) found that 6 year olds who gave themselves verbal instructions on what needed to be done to complete a maths problem performed better on the task. She concluded that self-guiding speech is important in developing the child’s abilities as Vygotsky predicted. In a follow up experiment it was also shown that as 4 to 5 year olds became better at a task their speech became increasingly internalised. This suggests that talking out loud is used by children when learning new tasks. As they become more competent it becomes internalised.
Social interaction With language the child has the ability to learn from those with more knowledge, especially adults. Learning occurs by active internalisation of strategies picked up by communicating with others.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). ‘…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. 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. 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. Criticisms · Motivation · Vygotsky does not consider the importance of the child’s desire to learn. · 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. · 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!). 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 Education Vygotsky emphasises the role of social interaction in teaching and this is where his greatest contribution has been. Effective teachers are those with more knowledge than the child and can include peers. Teachers need to provide scaffolding and be able to adjust the level of assistance they provide depending upon the progress of the child. 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. 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 students. Instead, he argues, scaffolding is more appropriate for one on one situations. 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.’ Peer tutorin One area in which scaffolding appears to have been used successfully is in the area of peer tutoring. Vygotsky emphasises that anyone with more knowledge than the child can act as teacher, be it an adult, older child or a more advanced child of the same age (peer). 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.
Information Processing Approach Note, this has been dropped from the specification this year so the examiners cannot ask a specific question about IP theory. However, I have retained it in the notes, partly because you may find it interesting (unlikely but you never know) and partly because it took me bloody ages to include it in the first place!! It has long been a popular practice by Psychologists and others to liken the workings of the brain to the most advanced technology of the day. In the past this has including primitive calculating machines and telephone exchanges. Today it is the modern computer, and the information processing approach tries to draw analogies between the two. For example the proponents of this approach talk of structures such as short term and long-term memory and of processes such as attention, storing, encoding and problem solving. Assumptions Adults seem to think differently, and usually more effectively, than children. This difference is attributed to more efficient processing of information. Possible reasons for this: 1. The child has limited processing abilities. Tests on recall have shown that adults are better at recall after only hearing stimulus material presented to them once. This could be due to brain maturation and growth. For example myelination occurs as we develop. This is coating of the nerve fibres with an insulating fatty sheath that speeds up the rate of transmission of information in the brain. 2. A greater knowledge base and know better ways of learning, for example adults have learned how to chunk information (remember Miller and all that?). See Chi (1978). 3. Adults have developed better strategies to help memory and other important cognitive skills.
Knowledge base Adults clearly have a much greater knowledge base than children. Chi (1978) showed that this alone can make a difference in cognitive performance. He compared 10-year-old chess players with adult non-chess players. Although the adults had better overall memories the children were much better at recalling chess positions than the adults, presumably because of their better knowledge of chess. Automatic Processe As we get older and more practised at tasks they require less effort and processing time. For example driving a car. As a learner we have to attend carefully and concentrate on every move. As experienced drivers we are able to drive miles with little or no focussed attention to what we are doing. Similarly, reading, maths etc. require far more effort by a young mind than by an adult mind. In information processing terms this automating of processes frees up space in memory and other structures allowing more efficient processing. Pascal-Leone and Case These are both referred to as neo-Piagetian because of their similarities to the master’s theory. Similarities with Piaget 1. Children have structures (schemas or schemes) for their understanding. 2. Children move through stages: pre-concrete to concrete to abstract (formal). Differences from Piaget 1. Children don’t use just the one strategy, as Piaget suggested, when tackling a problem. They use many, the number varying depending on the complexity of the problem. 2. Cognitive development relies on an increase in mental power. They refer to this as M-space. Pascal-Leone equates this to the number of schemes that a child can work with at a time. M-space increases with age and this explains cognitive development. M-space is often likened to working memory or, keeping the computer analogy alive, to random access memory (RAM). Case suggested three reasons why M-space increases with age: a. The brain develops and myelination takes place allowing faster transmission of nerve impulses. b. Schemes and strategies become automatic so require less memory. This frees up extra memory for dealing with other tasks. c. Once schemes are automatic they become ‘central conceptual structures.’ These allow children to think in more advanced ways and as a result come up with still better strategies for solving problems. Case’s schemes are similar to Piaget’s schemas. Children can acquire new schemes by either 1. Modifying existing schemes or 2. Combining existing schemes together. Research evidence Case (1992) asked children to draw a picture of a mother looking out of a window at her son playing peek-a-boo with her in the park on the other side of the road! Younger children can only draw part of the scenario whereas older children can cope with the whole thing. Case believed that this was due to the younger children’s limited M-space or lack of capacity to hold the entire picture in their mind. Positive comments The IP approach has been successful in studying adult thinking. Many studies have shown that what Piaget put down to lack of necessary structures can in fact be attributed to insufficient storage capacity or M-power (space). It is able to explain some individual differences in development, for example research has shown that different people have different speeds of transmission in the nervous system and that faster conduction in neurons is correlated to higher IQ. Negative comments It is difficult to work out how many structures or schemes are being used to solve a particular problem. We are unable to measure a person’s mental capacity. It is difficult to distinguish changes in strategies from changes in M-power. Personal/practical note. Compared to Piaget and Vygotsky, this is a relatively new theory and so consequently research evidence is scarce. Personally, although I believe the theory has merit I still find it a little ‘wishy washy.’ Given the choice opt for one of the other two, or if you’re asked to describe two, opt for both of the others! Unfortunately, since the information processing theory is specifically mentioned in the syllabus the question could in theory, ask for a description/evaluation of this.
Applying Information-Processing theory to the classroom Task Analysis This is seen as the most important implication for education. Since the child has a limited mental capacity the teacher needs to ensure that the child is not overloaded. In order to do this the information to be taught needs to be broken down into its constituent parts. This also ensures that the information is presented in the most effective way. A knock on benefit of task analysis is that if the child fails to understand the material it should be easier to see where mistakes have been made if the task has been broken down. (Think of maths problems: teachers typically tell their students to show their working. This is useful to the teacher if the final answer is wrong since they can trace the steps back to see where the error has occurred). Examples from maths Brown and Burton (1978) These use the term ‘bug’ to refer to an error in a child’s arithmetic rules for example: 625 The child always subtracts the smallest number from the largest -478 regardless of which is on the top line. ____ 253
Brown and Burton devised games called ‘Buggy’ and ‘Debuggy’ to help teachers spot the bugs in a child’s thinking. The important thing for teachers to realise is that such errors are due to systematic errors that can be corrected rather than due to carelessness. Recognising the limited capacity of the child The IP approach emphasises the limited capacity of the child’s mind. As a result it is essential that teachers present material in manageable chunks that do not overload the child’s mind. Teachers can also teach strategies for increasing the child’s processing ability such as ‘chunking’, rehearsal and elaboration; think back to AS ‘memory’ with levels of processing and multi-store models etc. Metacognition This is being aware of your own mental processes, for example realising that ‘chunking’ can help improve STM and that processing information at the semantic level will aid long term recall; knowledge that you should be armed with and which you should use in combat situations! An example of this in young children was highlighted by Palincsar and Brown (1984). Children often have problems understanding text because they concentrate on individual words and sentences rather on the bigger picture. The researchers taught children to consider the context of the text and significantly increased their comprehension skills. (Again it is crucial for your own learning that you see the composite elements of a topic within the overall context of that topic. This will be particularly important for the synoptic element of Module 5 trying to put the various strands of psychology into an overall context.
On the face of it this seems as though it should be an innocuous enough subject, but partly because of the way it was handled in the early days, when we lived in less enlightened times, it has become the most controversial of all topics in Psychology. The issue that still rages is to what extent environmental factors and genetics determine your level of intelligence; nature versus nurture at its ugliest. Over the years the entrenched and prejudiced views of a number of Psychologists have stirred the argument, most notably Jensen, Hernstein and Murray and the late Sir Cyril Burt! Add to this the fact that few can agree on what exactly ‘intelligence’ is, let alone how to measure it, and you have subject matter ripe for evaluation. However, throughout the topic it is important to bear in the falsehood of the traditional argument. The geneticists claim that if the heritability of IQ is high then the environmental factors must be of little importance. Conversely the environmental argument assumes that if environmental factors are most important then genetic factors must be of little importance. Both extremes seem to miss the obvious point that both nature and nurture might be crucial. Intelligence will be low if excellent quality genes are not educated, or if excellent education tries to influence defective genes! Nature: the geneticist’s argument There is clear anecdotal evidence for the genetic causation of intelligence provided by family studies. Galton as long ago as 1869, reported in his study ‘Hereditary genius’ that intelligent sons tend to have intelligent fathers. As with later studies involving race, Galton, like his successors failed to recognise the importance of family influence and exclusive education. In particular, in Galton’s case, most Victorian children lived in poverty and had little in the way of formal education, just like their parents. Whereas the influential and wealthy had access to public schools followed by a University education at Oxford or Cambridge just like their parents! Apologies for the rant… the sociologist in me seeping out there. Didn’t realise it existed lol!
Twin studies Clearly if genetics play a crucial role in determining measured intelligence then we would expect MZ twins to have similar IQs. The closer the correlation between IQ the more likely the genetic link. Any difference between IQ would have to be attributed to other factors, namely environmental, such as education or upbringing. Bouchard & McGue (1981) These reviewed 111 (unlucky for some) studies and found that identical twins are more similar in their measured intelligence than fraternal twins.
Possible conclusions The findings clearly suggest that the more closely related we are genetically the more similar is our measured intelligence. Particularly noticeable is the greater similarity between MZ twins than DZ twins and the higher level of correlation between MZ twins reared apart and DZ twins reared together. This on the face of it does suggest a greater role played by genes than by environment.
BUT What follows is not only essential for this topic but for any argument where the nature/nurture debate rears its ugly head. The geneticists make a major assumption when trying to interpret the findings of such studies. They assume that MZ twins and DZ twins will be reared similarly and that MZ twins reared apart will have very different experiences. Evidence suggests otherwise. Kamin (1981) seems to have taken it upon himself to discredit the geneticist argument. He points out the following anomalies which can be used time and time again! MZ twins are going to be reared more similarly than DZ twins. For starters MZ twins are always the same sex, this is not true of DZ twins. Also MZ twins are more likely to be dressed alike, attend the same schools, be in the same classes, have the same friends and often be confused with one another. As a result their environment as well as their genes, is far more similar than those of DZ twins. MZ twins reared apart do not necessarily have very different upbringings. They may be reared within the same family and in the same area. As a result they may still attend the same school and even be in the same class. Even if they are reared apart adoption agencies tend to try and allocate them to similar families to their natural families again resulting in more similar upbringing to the one suggested by the geneticists. In a study by Shields (1962) a correlation of 0.77 was reported for MZ twins reared apart. This fell to 0.51 when MZ twins reared apart, but in the same family, were excluded. Researchers tend to overlook the fact that MZ twins reared apart still spend at least 9 months in the same environment during pregnancy. Pre-natal factors may be a very important environmental influence on levels of measured intelligence. Experimenter bias may be a factor. In some of the studies used in Bouchard & McGue’s meta-analysis, the researchers knew in advance which twins were identical and which ones had been separated, i.e. the research was not carried out double blind as would be appropriate. Different studies use different tests making comparisons at best, difficult. Before the advent of DNA testing it would be difficult to know for certain which twins were MZ and which were DZ, particularly in the case of separated twins. The research by Sir Cyril Burt who found very high correlations between the IQs of 53 pairs of MZ twins reared apart has been questioned by many since there seem to be ‘peculiarities’ in his work. To be fair, this research was not included in the Bouchard & McGue review! On a note of historical interest it is worth pointing out that Burt’s work formed the basis of the eleven plus system in this country, which I missed by one year. Testing at age 11 determined whether you went to grammar school and got a good standard of education or were relegated to a secondary modern school and got a poorer standard. According tp the argument, since intelligence was largely genetic then being thick at 11 meant that you’d always be thick so there was no point in wasting a good education on you!!
Adoption studies Essentially the idea is simple. Compare the IQs of adopted children with their adoptive parents and their biological parents: If their IQs show a greater correlation with the people who have raised them this would suggest that environment is most important whereas if their IQ shows a greater similarity with their biological parents then this would suggest genetic factors are most important. Horn (1983) in the Texas Adoption Project found a correlation of 0.28 with biological parents compared to a correlation of 0.15 with adoptive parents. This supports the idea of genetic influence being most important, however, it also suggests that the influence is small. Plomin et al (1997) carried out a longitudinal study on 245 adopted children. It would be expected that as children grow up they will become more like their adoptive parents. In fact the researchers found that the opposite happened for IQ. By the time the children had reached adolescence their IQs had grown more similar to their biological parents. In fact the correlations were just as high as a control group had been reared by their biological parents throughout. This is strong support for the genetic case! One big problem with adoption studies is knowing how different the adopted environment is from the environment of their biological parents. What is clear however, is that if the environments are very different, for example when children are taken from impoverished backgrounds and brought up in middle class homes substantial improvements in IQ can be achieved. Scarr & Weinberg (1976) studied 101 white, middle class families who adopted black children from poor backgrounds. On adoption their average IQ was 90 but this rose to an average of 106 following adoption. This would not be expected if genes were the only influence on IQ. If all of this research has left you confused you’re not alone. It is almost impossible to draw firm conclusions since there are so many differences between studies and because so many researchers have entered the debate and carried out research with preconceived ideas and expectations. There is one further adoption study by Capron & Duyne (1989) which I shall mention later since I consider it to be an ideal way of summarising this whole pathetic argument. (Not to be quoted!).
IQ Stability This refers to the idea that a person’s IQ remains at a reasonably constant level throughout their life, as would be expected if it were genetic. Most studies have in fact confirmed this with only short term fluctuations usually during times of stress or trauma. However, some studies, for example McCall et al (1973) have reported large fluctuations in 140 middle class children, with the average IQ change between the ages of 2 and 17 being 28 points!
Nurture: the environmental argument Evidence for this side of the debate comes from anything that suggests that intervention in a child’s education or upbringing can have an effect on their measured intelligence. Enrichment studies These work on the principle that if you remove a child from a deprived background and give it a better education then you can improve its IQ. The most famous of these intervention studies are ‘Operation Headstart’ and the HOME Inventory. Orphanage studies Skeels (1966), followed up by others later, split a group of 25 orphans into two groups. 13 were placed in a home for ‘retarded’ women and ‘mothered, 12 were kept at the orphanage and acted as a sort of control group for comparison purposes. The developmental quotients, a form of IQ, were recorded before during and after the intervention. The group that were adopted showed a significant increase from 64 to 93, whereas the control group suffered a drop in IQ! Twenty years later the differences remained. This study seems to suggest the importance of environmental factors in being able to increase a child’s IQ.
HOME Inventory (The Home Observation for Measurement of Environment) The Inventory was designed to measure a number of categories important to a child’s development, for example: verbal responsiveness of parents, the number of toys provided for children, the parental involvement with the child and the opportunities provided for stimulation. Gottfried found a positive correlation between these positive factors and IQ. In particular it was found that stimulation, lots of toys and parental involvement were important in raising a child’s IQ. However, crucial here for evaluation purposes is cause and effect. The study is correlational. It could be that intelligent parents are more likely to ensure a good environment for their offspring and be more concerned about providing stimulation. The higher IQ of their children could therefore be inherited. Rochester study This is similar to the HOME study but this time it identifies risk factors rather than positive factors. Sameroff et al (1987) carried out a longitudinal study on a large sample of over 200 children following them from birth. IQs were tested at the ages of 4 and 13 years of age. The study identified ten risk factors possibly associated with reduced IQ. These included: Mother having a mental illness Few interactions between mother and child Four or more children in the family Father absent This time a negative correlation was found. More risk factors resulting in significantly lower IQ. By the age of 4, high risk children (those with a number of risk factors) were 24 times more likely to have an IQ of 85 or less. Operation Headstart There were a number of similar initiatives carried out in the USA in the 1960s each trying to improve the lot of children from under-privileged backgrounds. For example children were given 10 weeks of summer school over a three year period. In the short term there were significant gains in IQ but these declined and were almost gone within six years. However, Lazar (1979) reported what was called a ‘sleeper effect.’ Those involved in the study were far less likely to have dropped out of High School and were less likely to be in need of special help. Lazar and Darlington (1982) concluded that this improvement may not have been due to improvements in IQ but put them down to increased motivation in the participants. Animal Studies
Cooper & Zubeck (1958) reared maze bright and maze dull rats. The maze-bright, as their title suggests were very good at running a maze! Maze-bright rats were than placed in a dull cage and maze-dull rats placed in a stimulating cage. When retested on their ability to run mazes it was found that maze-dull rats were now performing like maze-bright rats and maze-bright rats had been relegated to the status of maze-dull rats. It was concluded that the abilities of the rats that had been inherited could be over-ridden by the environment in which they had been reared.
As with research supporting the genetic case, it is impossible to assess the exact role played by genetic and environmental factors. In the case of studies purporting to support the environmental case genetics can never be ruled out. For example, a mother that provides a more stimulating environment for her child and as a result rears a child that scores highly on tests of measured intelligence, could be doing so because she herself is more intelligent. As a result she realises the importance of a stimulating environment. However, is the intelligence of her child due to the stimulation she has provided, as assumed by the environmentalists, or due to the genes the child has inherited from this more intelligent mother As promised, the best study to finish off the nature/nurture argument: Capron & Duyne (1989) compared the IQ of adopted children with that of their biological parents and that of their adoptive parents. Socio economic status (SES) of each set of parents was considered. There were 4 possible combinations of parents:
If biological factors are most important then the IQs of children should be most similar to the SES of biological parents and most similar to SES of adoptive parents if environmental factors are most important. (It is assumed that high SES will result in higher IQ). In fact what the researchers found was that the SES of both parents appeared ton be equally important. Conclusion: both genetic and environmental factors are as important in determining levels of measured intelligence and at last a break out of common sense!
Race and measured intelligence The average IQ of American whites is 15 points higher than the average IQ of American blacks, although there are very large individual differences. If, as some researchers have done, we assume that IQ is overwhelmingly genetic in origin (some like Jensen putting it as high as 80%), then this could be taken as evidence for whites being genetically superior to blacks! Other researchers such as Hernstein & Murray in their controversial book ‘The Bell Curve’ put less emphasis on genetic factors, however, they still emphasised the crucial role played by genes and came to similar conclusions to Jensen.
The politics of IQ In some respects this argument may appear to be theoretical but it does have widespread implications for social policy and education. If, as Jensen and others have tried to show, intelligence is largely genetic then there is little point on spending taxpayers money on educating those with low IQs since any amount of help is going to produce little improvement. The same argument was used in Britain thanks to the work of Sir Cyril Burt, and condemned generations of children to a second class, secondary modern education!
Culture and IQ IQ tests were first devised by Westerners. To be precise Frenchies! They were designed with a specific purpose in mind, Binet’s original test being to single out children with special educational needs so that they could receive the additional attention they needed. To some extent all tests reflect the culture or the society in which they were produced. The following examples will hopefully illustrate this more clearly: Otto Klineberg (1971) gave a test to children of the Yakima native North American tribe. The test was straight forward, the children had to place blocks of various shapes into appropriately shaped holes. However, they had to do this ‘as quickly as possible.’ Although they were able to perform the task they scored lowly because there was no sense of urgency so they were very slow at the task compared to white children. Klineberg concluded that this test was culture bound since it placed such an emphasis on speed, a concept more important in Western Culture. Native North Americans have no reason to rush! Porteus (1937) had problems getting Aborigines to sit tests individually since they are from a collectivist culture where everyone is brought up to help others. As a result they wanted to help each other complete the tasks! Luria (1973), a famous Russian psychologist, reported the case of studies carried out on Russian peasants who had received little formal education. They were given an ‘odd one out test’ comprising an axe, a saw, a log and a shovel. They chose the shovel! The reasoning behind this being that the others are used together, axe, saw, log Glick (1975) reported similar findings with the Kpelle farmers of West Africa. They too categorised objects by their use rather than by arbitary groupings. For example a knife would be paired with an orange and a hoe would be paired with a potato. When asked how a fool would group the objects they put them into typical Western categories, i.e. the hoe and the knife went together!
What intelligence means in different cultures Western ideas Here, intelligence is defined in terms of fast and analytical thought. Being able to think in abstract terms is also seen as essential. Think back to Piaget’s formal operational thought, seen as the pinnacle of human thinking and comprising the ability to think in hypothetical and abstract terms. As a result, Western IQ tests measure abstract thought and set strict limits on time. If anyone has tried the BBC Test the Nation IQ test you will have found that a clock appears on screen giving you a set time limit for each response. Clearly in other cultures abstract thought is going to be of little practical use. Similarly, when time is not an issue then the ability to perform tasks within time limits is going to be pointless. As a result what is seen as intelligent in other cultures and how they test for it are going to be very different. Some other ideas In many cultures slow reflective thought is seen as being far more desirable than the ability to make fast decisions under pressure. For example in the Baganda tribe of Uganda, the intelligent person is ‘cautious, careful, stable and friendly.’ Similarly native North American cultures place the emphasis on slow and reflective thought. In the Djerma-Sonhai tribe of Niger, intelligence is measured in terms of know-how, understanding and conformity to social norms. The intelligent child therefore is obedient and does as they are expected. Contrast that to the more individualistic view of the genius of Western culture, who goes it alone, may be eccentric and approaches problems from new angles. Western IQ tests do not measure conformity or practical skills and certainly do not reward slow reflective thought. As a result people from other cultures are not going to perform well on tests designed by Westerners for Westerners! Attempts to produce culture-fair tests have largely been unsuccessful. Often they have simply tried to make tests more visual, but still other cultures have failed to perform as well as Westerners. Obvious errors have been made, for example the use of puzzles with straight lines or drawn in two dimensions. We are accustomed to shapes like these through our everyday experience. However, people from other cultures may not be used to seeing straight lines. There World is natural and three dimensional. Biesheuval 1974, concluded that each Society or culture should devise its own tests for measuring intelligence.
Social Class and IQ This will not be examined in its own right, but is nonetheless interesting and could be incorporated into other essays. The classic study here is of British canal boat people in the 1920s. These rarely attended school so had little in the way of formal education. When tested on standard IQ tests they averaged about 60, nearly three standard deviations below the norm and qualifying them as highly ‘educationally sub-normal’ or whatever euphemism would have been used in those days! However, most people today would agree that this score was not a true reflection of their intelligence. But, as today, IQ tests measure analytical and abstract thought. Having had no formal education the boat children would instead have developed practical skills useful for a life on the canals. Although this is an extreme case, similar problems still occur today. IQ tests, as already mentioned, are developed mainly by middle classes and are designed to measure skills taught to and sought by the middle classes. For example they measure knowledge, although they may deny this. Generally they do not measure practical skills which are seen as more important to the working classes (or should I say lower socio-economic groupings!). Sternberg (1985) pointed out that they fail to measure creative or practical intelligence, instead concentrating on analytical intelligence. To sum up in the words of Helen Bee; both schools and IQ tests are ‘designed by the majority culture to promote a particular form of intellectual activity- Sternberg’ analytical intelligence.’ In this way the whole system in Western Society is structured to favour the white middle classes and discriminate against the lower classes and other ethnic groups. I’m starting to feel more like a sociologist every day (hope it isn’t catching!). They’re coming to take me away ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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. Haste et al (1998) suggested there were four questions to ask about moral development. These are outlined below with the theory that seeks to answer that particular aspect of morality:
Piaget, Kohlberg and Eisenberg are specified in the specification, but only as examples. Questions therefore cannot ask you specifically about Piaget, Kohlberg or Eisenberg, but could ask you for a theory of moral understanding (e.g. Piaget or Kohlberg) in which case you can choose. If you chose Kohlberg (the sensible option) then you could use Piaget for the purposes of evaluation and comparison. If the question asked you for a theory of pro-social reasoning you’re stuck with Eisenberg! Similarly Gilligan is also mentioned in relation to gender and moral development and would be the theory of choice and good to compare to Kohlberg. Freud’s theory is interesting (as always) but is not mentioned in the specification. However, since we have eluded to it on a number of occasions during the course I’ve thrown it in for good measure. It could be useful for the purposes of evaluation and comparison, particularly since it assumes, like Kohlberg and Piaget, that boys are more moral than girls…even though it reaches this conclusion by a very different route!
Sigmund Freud Freud is at his best here! The child is born with an id (instinctive and selfish) and develops an ego during the anal stage to deal with the conflicts arising during potty training. The superego is the final component to develop (during the phallic stage) and this is clearly the part that is going to be relevant to morality since the superego is our conscience, that part that is forever worrying about what others will think. So how does the superego come into existence? Oedipus Complex and Elektra Conflict During the phallic stage boys become obsessed by their willy (‘widdler’ in Little Hans speak) and girls by their wee equivalent the clitoris! As a result they develop an unconscious desire for their opposite sex parent; so famously little boys fall for their mums and less famously little girls fall for their dads (but, and you must emphasise this, according to Freud this is an unconscious desire!). Both sexes are worried that the same sex parent will discover their desires and suffer anxiety as a result. Crucially, since boys gave more to lose (their much prized Widdler), they suffer greater anxiety! Eventually both sexes come to accept that their quest is futile and come to the inevitable conclusion that the only way they’ll ever obtain their object of desire is to be like their same sex parent! That is the boy realises that the only way he get a woman like his mum is to grow up and be like his dad.
Research evidence Freud used his own research, for example the case of Little Hans to support his idea of an Oedipus complex. However, this is subjective in the extreme and each psychoanalysis carried out is very open to subjective interpretation Evaluation Freud’s theory would seem to suggest that the more anxiety (due to punishment) that a child suffers the stronger will be its superego and consequently the greater will be its sense of morality. However, research evidence suggests the opposite. Hoffman (1988) found that children that are spanked the most tend to be the most badly behaved, although there does seem to be an issue of cause and effect here! Hoffman also rejected Freud’s idea that boys have a stronger superego than girls. Snarey (1985) found little evidence to support this view when studying morals in a variety of cultures around the world. Other issues Freud appears to have over-emphasised the role of the same sex parent Freud did not consider the cognitive factors involved in moral development. (Compare this to Piaget and Kohlberg who consider these factors to the exclusion of all others). Children seem to consider their moral development after the age of 7!
Jean Piaget Cognitive theories (Piaget and Kohlberg) assume that cognitive development underpins moral development. A child can only develop its moral thinking as its ability to think improves and develops. In his book 'The Moral Judgement of the Child' (1932), Piaget states that 'all morality consists in a system of rules.' Piaget, therefore considers morality to be akin to justice and fair play. This is similar to Kohlberg’s outlook but seems to be missing out on other possible types of morality as discussed later in Gilligan! Methods Piaget used two methods of investigation:
2. Moral stories (compare to Kohlberg's moral dilemmas) Typically this would involve pairs of stories being read to the child, followed by questions.
Piaget’s three stages of moral development Pre-moral* (0 to 3 years) The child has little concept of morality or rules. Compare to Freuds’ oral stage. Heteronomous morality* or moral realism (4 to 10 years) The child’s moral reasoning is governed by external rules laid down by others. See table below for more detail. Basically they believe in expiatory punishment, i.e. the naughtier the behaviour the greater the punishment should be and in immanent justice, the idea that if a child is naughty they will suffer for it somehow. An example; if a child steals sweets on Monday, then falls and breaks their leg on Tuesday, then this would be justice. Autonomous morality* or moral relativism (10 years onwards) The child now has a more flexible view of rules and morality. Crucial differences include the idea that the punishment should be tailored to fit the crime and the ideas that it is intentions rather than consequences that determine the severity of the crime. *Note the ages here do vary from text to text!
Why children progress from heteronomous to autonomous 1. As I said at the outset, Piaget believed that moral development occurs on the back of cognitive development. One result of this is the move away from egocentric thought. At about the age of seven years the child begins to learn that other people see the World differently to themselves. This allows a greater appreciation of other points of view 2. As children get older they listen to the views expressed by others and begin to realise that their own opinions can be questioned. At an earlier age children mostly accept the views of their parents as fact. This is one reason why racist and homophobic opinions persist for so long in a changing society. Research evidence in support of Piaget As already mentioned much of the research was carried out by Piaget himself.
Evaluation Unlike with his theory of cognitive development, there was no revision or update of Piaget’s views on moral development. Piaget, was very much a pioneer in the area. He was the first to suggest links between morality and cognitive development and others have built on this, so yet again we have a Piagetian theory taht can be described as influential! Piaget’s methods, such as stories, have also been used by later researchers such as Kohlberg. But Many researchers disagree with the ‘ages and stages’ aspect of the theory. · Colby et al (1983) disagree that the child’s moral reasoning does not mature after the age of 10. · Weston & Turiel (1980) found that children as young as 3 are prepared to alter the rules of a geme, providing that others agree. As we all know, and as Weston & Turiel point out, children of any age do not always obey rules without question, as Piaget suggests! Nelson (1980) points out that in Piaget’s stories the emphasis is placed on the consequences and not the intentions. It seems that young children assume that negative outcomes must be caused by negative intentions. However, when intentions are made clear, even to children as young as three, they are able to separate this from outcomes. Piaget underestimated the ability of his children because he didn’t place as much emphasis on intentions as he did on outcomes. Armsby (1971) found that many children as young as six are able to judge intention as crucial in naughty behaviour. 60% judged a child who deliberately broke a cup as being just as more naughty than a child who accidently breaks a TV. Irwin & Moore (1971) believe that children in the heteronomous stage have a better understanding of punishment than Piaget believed. Children as young as three can distinguish between deserved and undeserved punishment. Perhaps most importantly, and this criticism can be made of Kohlberg too, Piaget assumed that a child’s behaviour would match their beliefs. By simply asking their views Piaget did not see how they behaved in practice. Again as we all know, what we say and what we actually do in practice can be very different!
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.
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; Preconventional, Conventional and Postconventional. Each of thses 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 conatins lots of detail but try and memorise 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.
Research in support of Kohlberg Kohlberg himself folowed up his original study every 2 to 5 years and found that progression in morality does occur. Kohlberg (1969) carried out similar research in other countries, Britain, Mexico, Turkey, Yucatan and Taiwan and again found similar patterns. It was also noted that moral development was slower in non-industrialised nations. There is widespread support for the first five stages of development and in the order that Kohlberg suggested. 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. Evaluation Kohlberg's theory has proved to be more influential than Piaget's and has had the benefit of revision over the years. Later research, for example by Gilligan and Eisenberg, although they have criticised aspects of Kohlberg's work, particularly his androcentric tendencies, have broadly supported his stages. However Kohlberg's theory is absed on moral dilemmas so suffers from the same criticisms as Piaget. The theory only considers a child's beliefs, not its actual behaviour. In practice the two may be very different! 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! 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.
Cultural bias Snarey (1985) and others have argued that the 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! 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. (For a fuller discussion, see later notes). Cognitive bias Kohlberg concentrates entirely on our thinking and reasoning and does not take into consideration emotion in moral reasoning. Kagan (1984) reported that children feel guilt for being naughty long before they are supposed to understand morality! Nancy Eisenberg’s model of Pro-social Reasoning Kohlberg’s and Piaget’s theories both have a number of similarities, as already mentioned. One of these is their emphasis on wrong doing and justice. Social psychologists in the 1970s became more interested in the reasoning behind people’s actions, as well as the actions themselves, and in moral development this trend was manifested by Eisenberg’s theory of pro-social reasoning. Crucially, as implied by the name, her theory also concentrates on positive behaviours and the reasoning behind them, rather than focusing on negative actions. However, Kohlberg is still the starting point, and much of Eisenberg’s theory and her methods show overlap and similarities with her predecessor’s. 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? On the basis of children's responses to dilemmas dealing with such pro-social behaviour, Eisenberg proposes a series of five levels of pro-social reasoning. Other factors: Feeling Feelings are crucial to her theory. She believes that morality develops through being able to empathise with others, being able to understand things from their point of view and sharing their feelings. Role play As children develop they take on many different roles, for example, daughter, best friend, pupil and party animal. They also become aware of the role played by others and are able to play these roles too. Role playing of this sort, as opposed to the orchestrated role playing of an electron in science, helps the child to see things from the point of view of others and helps in appreciating their feelings.
Eisenberg identified five main 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 4. 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.
In summary, the child progresses from a level at which reasoning is 'self-focused' or 'self-centred' ('what feels good to me is right’) to a stance in which social approval guides both reasoning about justice and about doing good. What is right is what other people define as right. Much later, some young people seem to develop internalised, individualised ideas, which then guide both types of reasoning. Eisenberg (1983) found that empathy is not a consistent characteristic. Children act differently towards different people. Clearly they are more likely to help friends and family, but are also more likely to help people from their own ethnic or religious group. Interestingly (Eisenberg 2005) comments on the lack of mention of reward and punishment mentioned by children in explaining their positive actions. This is in marked contrast to Kohlberg’s findings, when it was common for younger children to cite these as reasons for their negative behaviours. Evaluation 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 some of 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.
Cross cultural comparisons Boehnke et al 1989 found that children in various Western cultures tend to progress through Eisenberg’s stages in the order and at the age that she suggests. However, there do appear to be differences between cultures. In the more collectivist Kibbutzim of Israel children as young as primary school age show signs of stage 5 reasoning, believing that we have a duty to help others. This is not surprising given that the collectivist nature of the Kibbutz system places an emphasis on responsibility for others and not just responsibility for oneself as preached in more individualistic Western society. Other variables According to Eisenberg, it isn’t only cognitive development that determines the level at which the child reasons: 1. Socilisation Children worried about their appearance and about the views of others are more likely to operate at level 3 (approval-focused), whereas a child with a similar cognitive ability who has been bought up to be more empathetic, will most likely reason at level 4 (empathy-focused). 2. Situational factors As the costs involved in helping someone increase (e.g. in terms of time taken, expense or physical harm), the more a child is likely to offer hedonistic explanations of their actions. Specific situational variables may also be important, e.g. if lots of people are watching we may act in order to gain the approval of others.
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. Culture and Morality This is mentioned on the syllabus so could come up. What follows is a brief overview and will include work mentioned in greater detail earlier in the booklet. Crucial is the idea of a collectivist culture in Asian and African countries as opposed to an individualistic culture in Westernised societies. (If you are unclear on these terms… ASK or find out more about them!). 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. Cultural bias in Kohlberg (the boxed section is a copy of an earlier section)
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. 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. Lee et al shows that cultural and social factors are crucial in determining moral development.
|
