  |
|
|||||
|
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.
Findings in detail:
|
