{"id":158,"date":"2016-03-25T20:47:15","date_gmt":"2016-03-25T20:47:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/educationalpsychology\/?post_type=chapter&p=158"},"modified":"2016-03-25T21:11:40","modified_gmt":"2016-03-25T21:11:40","slug":"cognitive-development-the-theory-of-jean-piaget","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-educationalpsychology\/chapter\/cognitive-development-the-theory-of-jean-piaget\/","title":{"raw":"Cognitive Development: The Theory of Jean Piaget","rendered":"Cognitive Development: The Theory of Jean Piaget"},"content":{"raw":"Cognition refers to thinking and memory processes, and cognitive development<\/strong> refers to long-term changes in these processes. One of the most widely known perspectives about cognitive development is the cognitive stage theory of a Swiss psychologist named Jean Piaget<\/strong>. Piaget created and studied an account of how children and youth gradually become able to think logically and scientifically. Because his theory is especially popular among educators, we focus on it in this chapter.\r\n\r\nPiaget was\u00a0a psychological constructivist<\/strong>: in his view, learning proceeded by the interplay of assimilation (adjusting new experiences to fit prior concepts) and accommodation (adjusting concepts to fit new experiences). The to-and-fro of these two processes leads not only to short-term learning, but also to long-term developmental change<\/strong>. The long-term developments are really the main focus of Piaget\u2019s cognitive theory.\r\n\r\nAfter observing children closely, Piaget proposed that cognition developed through distinct stages from birth through the end of adolescence. By stages he meant a sequence of thinking patterns with four key features:\r\n
    \r\n\t
  1. They always happen in the same order.<\/li>\r\n\t
  2. No stage is ever skipped.<\/li>\r\n\t
  3. Each stage is a significant transformation of the stage before it.<\/li>\r\n\t
  4. Each later stage incorporated the earlier stages into itself.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nBasically this is the \u201cstaircase\u201d model of development mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. Piaget proposed four major stages of cognitive development, and called them (1) sensorimotor intelligence, (2) preoperational thinking, (3) concrete operational thinking, and (4) formal operational thinking. Each stage is correlated with an age period of childhood, but only approximately.\r\n

    The sensorimotor stage: birth to age 2<\/h2>\r\nIn Piaget\u2019s theory, the sensorimotor stage is first, and is defined as the period when infants \u201cthink\u201d by means of their senses and motor actions. As every new parent will attest, infants continually touch, manipulate, look, listen to, and even bite and chew objects. According to Piaget, these actions allow them to learn about the world and are crucial to their early cognitive development.\r\n\r\nThe infant\u2019s actions allow the child to represent (or construct simple concepts of) objects and events. A toy animal may be just a confusing array of sensations at first, but by looking, feeling, and manipulating it repeatedly, the child gradually organizes her sensations and actions into a stable concept, toy animal<\/em>. The representation acquires a permanence lacking in the individual experiences of the object, which are constantly changing. Because the representation is stable, the child \u201cknows,\u201d or at least believes, that toy animal exists even if the actual toy animal<\/em> is temporarily out of sight. Piaget called this sense of stability object permanence<\/strong>, a belief that objects exist whether or not they are actually present. It is a major achievement of sensorimotor development, and marks a qualitative transformation in how older infants (24 months) think about experience compared to younger infants (6 months).\r\n\r\nDuring much of infancy, of course, a child can only barely talk, so sensorimotor development initially happens without the support of language. It might therefore seem hard to know what infants are thinking, but Piaget devised\u00a0several simple, but clever experiments to get around their lack of language, and that suggest that infants do indeed represent objects even without being able to talk (Piaget, 1952). In one, for example, he simply hid an object (like a toy animal) under a blanket. He found that doing so consistently prompts older infants (18\u201324 months) to search for the object, but fails to prompt younger infants (less than six months) to do so. (You can try this experiment yourself if you happen to have access to young infant.) \u201cSomething\u201d motivates the search by the older infant even without the benefit of much language, and the \u201csomething\u201d is presumed to be a permanent concept or representation of the object.\r\n

    The preoperational stage: age 2 to 7<\/h2>\r\nIn the preoperational stage<\/strong>, children use their new ability to represent objects in a wide variety of activities, but they do not yet do it in ways that are organized or fully logical. One of the most obvious examples of this kind of cognition is dramatic play<\/strong>, the improvised make-believe of preschool children. If you have ever had responsibility for children of this age, you have likely witnessed such play. Ashley holds a plastic banana to her ear and says: \u201cHello, Mom? Can you be sure to bring me my baby doll? OK!\u201d Then she hangs up the banana and pours tea for Jeremy into an invisible cup. Jeremy giggles at the sight of all of this and exclaims: \u201cRinnng! Oh Ashley, the phone is ringing again! You better answer it.\u201d And on it goes.\r\n\r\nIn a way, children immersed in make-believe seem \u201cmentally insane,\u201d in that they do not think realistically. But they are not truly insane because they have not really taken leave of their senses. At some level, Ashley and Jeremy always know that the banana is still a banana and not really<\/em> a telephone; they are merely representing<\/em> it as a telephone. They are thinking on two levels at once\u2014one imaginative and the other realistic. This dual processing of experience makes dramatic play an early example of metacognition<\/strong>, or reflecting on and monitoring of thinking itself. Metacognition is a highly desirable skill for success in school, one that teachers often encourage (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Paley, 2005). Partly for this reason, teachers of young children (preschool, kindergarten, and even first or second grade) often make time and space in their classrooms for dramatic play, and sometimes even participate in it themselves to help develop the play further.\r\n

    The concrete operational stage: age 7 to 11<\/h2>\r\nAs children continue into elementary school, they become able to represent ideas and events more flexibly and logically. Their rules of thinking still seem very basic by adult standards and usually operate unconsciously, but they allow children to solve problems more systematically than before, and therefore to be successful with many academic tasks. In the concrete operational stage, for example, a child may unconsciously follow the rule: \u201cIf nothing is added or taken away, then the amount of something stays the same.\u201d This simple principle helps children to understand certain arithmetic tasks, such as in adding or subtracting zero from a number, as well as to do certain classroom science experiments, such as ones involving judgments of the amounts of liquids when mixed. Piaget called this period the concrete operational stage<\/strong> because children mentally \u201coperate\u201d on concrete objects and events. They are not yet able, however, to operate (or think) systematically about representations<\/em> of objects or events. Manipulating representations is a more abstract skill that develops later, during adolescence.\r\n\r\nConcrete operational thinking differs from preoperational thinking in two ways, each of which renders children more skilled as students. One difference is reversibility<\/strong>, or the ability to think about the steps of a process in any order. Imagine a simple science experiment, for example, such as one that explores why objects sink or float by having a child place an assortment of objects in a basin of water. Both the preoperational and concrete operational\u00a0child can recall and describe the steps in this experiment, but only the concrete operational child can recall them in any order<\/em>. This skill is very helpful on any task involving multiple steps\u2014a common feature of tasks in the classroom. In teaching new vocabulary from a story, for another example, a teacher might tell students: \u201cFirst make a list of words in the story that you do not know, then find and write down their definitions, and finally get a friend to test you on your list.\u201d These directions involve repeatedly remembering to move back and forth between a second step and a first\u2014a task that concrete operational students\u2014and most adults\u2014find easy, but that preoperational children often forget to do or find confusing. If the younger children are to do this task reliably, they may need external prompts, such as having the teacher remind them periodically to go back to the story to look for more unknown words\r\n\r\nThe other new feature of thinking during the concrete operational stage is the child\u2019s ability to decenter<\/strong>, or focus on more than one feature of a problem at a time. There are hints of decentration in preschool children\u2019s dramatic play, which requires being aware on two levels at once\u2014knowing that a banana can be both a banana and a \u201ctelephone.\u201d But the decentration of the concrete operational stage is more deliberate and conscious than preschoolers\u2019 make-believe. Now the child can attend to two things at once quite purposely. Suppose you give students a sheet with an assortment of subtraction problems on it, and ask them to do this: \u201cFind all of the problems that involve two-digit subtraction and<\/em> that involve borrowing from the next column. Circle and solve only<\/em> those problems.\u201d Following these instructions is quite possible for a concrete operational student (as long as they have been listening!) because the student can attend to the two subtasks simultaneously\u2014finding the two-digit problems and<\/em> identifying which actually involve borrowing. (Whether the student actually knows how to \u201cborrow\u201d however, is a separate question.)\r\n\r\nIn real classroom tasks, reversibility and decentration often happen together. A well-known example of joint presence is Piaget\u2019s experiments with conservation<\/strong>, the belief that an amount or quantity stays the same even if it changes apparent size or shape (Piaget, 2001; Matthews, 1998). Imagine two identical balls made of clay. Any child, whether preoperational or concrete operational, will agree that the two indeed have the same amount of clay in them simply because they look the same. But if you now squish one ball into a long, thin \u201chot dog,\u201d the preoperational child is likely to say that the amount of that ball has changed\u2014either because it is longer or because it is thinner, but at any rate because it now looks different. The concrete operational child will not make this mistake, thanks to new cognitive skills of reversibility and decentration: for him or her, the amount is the same because \u201cyou could squish it back into a ball again\u201d (reversibility) and because \u201cit may be longer, but it is also thinner\u201d (decentration). Piaget would say the concrete operational child \u201chas conservation of quantity.\u201d\r\n\r\nThe classroom examples described above also involve reversibility and decentration. As already mentioned, the vocabulary activity described earlier requires reversibility (going back and forth between identifying words and looking up their meanings); but it can also be construed as an example of decentration (keeping in mind two tasks at once\u2014word identification and<\/em> dictionary search). And as mentioned, the arithmetic activity requires decentration (looking for problems that meet two criteria and<\/em> also solving them), but it can also be construed as an example of reversibility (going back and forth between subtasks, as with the vocabulary activity). Either way, the development of concrete operational skills support students in doing many basic academic tasks; in a sense they make ordinary schoolwork possible\r\n

    The formal operational stage: age 11 and beyond<\/h2>\r\nIn the last of the Piagetian stages, the child becomes able to reason not only about tangible objects and events, but also about hypothetical or abstract ones. Hence it has the name formal operational stage<\/strong>\u2014the period when the individual can \u201coperate\u201d on \u201cforms\u201d or representations. With students at this level, the teacher can pose hypothetical (or contrary-to-fact) problems: \u201cWhat if<\/em> the world had never discovered oil?\u201d or \u201cWhat if<\/em> the first European explorers had settled first in California instead of on the East Coast of the United States?\u201d To answer such questions, students must use hypothetical reasoning<\/strong>, meaning that they must manipulate ideas that vary in several ways at once, and do so entirely in their minds\r\n\r\nThe hypothetical reasoning that concerned Piaget primarily involved scientific problems. His studies of formal operational thinking therefore often look like problems that middle or high school teachers pose in science classes. In one problem, for example, a young person is presented with a simple pendulum, to which different amounts of weight can be hung (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). The experimenter asks: \u201cWhat determines how fast the pendulum swings: the length of the string holding it, the weight attached to it, or the distance that it is pulled to the side?\u201d The young person is not allowed to solve this problem by trial-and-error with the materials themselves, but must reason a way to the solution mentally. To do so systematically, he or she must imagine varying each factor separately, while also imagining the other factors that are held constant. This kind of thinking requires facility at manipulating mental representations of the relevant objects and actions\u2014precisely the skill that defines formal operations.\r\n\r\nAs you might suspect, students with an ability to think hypothetically have an advantage in many kinds of school work: by definition, they require relatively few \u201cprops\u201d to solve problems. In this sense they can in principle be more self-directed than students who rely only on concrete operations\u2014certainly a desirable quality in the opinion of most teachers. Note, though, that formal operational thinking is desirable but not sufficient for school success, and that it is far from being the only way that students achieve educational success. Formal thinking skills do not insure that a student is motivated or well-behaved, for example, nor does it guarantee other desirable skills, such as ability at sports, music, or art. The fourth stage in Piaget\u2019s theory is really about a particular kind of formal thinking, the kind needed to solve scientific problems and devise scientific experiments. Since many people do not normally deal with such problems in the normal course of their lives, it should be no surprise that research finds that many people never achieve or use formal thinking fully or consistently, or that they use it only in selected areas with which they are very familiar (Case & Okomato, 1996). For teachers, the limitations of Piaget's ideas suggest a need for additional theories about development\u2014ones that focus more directly on the social and interpersonal issues of childhood and adolescence. The next sections describe some of these.\r\n

    References<\/h2>\r\n

    Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice, Revised edition.<\/em> Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.<\/p>\r\n

    Case, R. & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in children\u2019s thought<\/em>. Chicago: Society for Research on Child Development.<\/p>\r\n

    Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the growth of formal operational structures<\/em>. New York: Basic Books.<\/p>\r\n

    Matthews, G. (1998). The philosophy of childhood<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.<\/p>\r\n

    Paley, V. (2005). A child\u2019s work: The importance of fantasy play<\/em>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\r\nPiaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children<\/em>. New York: International Universities Press.\r\n\r\nPiaget, J. (2001). The psychology of intelligence<\/em>. Oxford, UK: Routledge","rendered":"

    Cognition refers to thinking and memory processes, and cognitive development<\/strong> refers to long-term changes in these processes. One of the most widely known perspectives about cognitive development is the cognitive stage theory of a Swiss psychologist named Jean Piaget<\/strong>. Piaget created and studied an account of how children and youth gradually become able to think logically and scientifically. Because his theory is especially popular among educators, we focus on it in this chapter.<\/p>\n

    Piaget was\u00a0a psychological constructivist<\/strong>: in his view, learning proceeded by the interplay of assimilation (adjusting new experiences to fit prior concepts) and accommodation (adjusting concepts to fit new experiences). The to-and-fro of these two processes leads not only to short-term learning, but also to long-term developmental change<\/strong>. The long-term developments are really the main focus of Piaget\u2019s cognitive theory.<\/p>\n

    After observing children closely, Piaget proposed that cognition developed through distinct stages from birth through the end of adolescence. By stages he meant a sequence of thinking patterns with four key features:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. They always happen in the same order.<\/li>\n
    2. No stage is ever skipped.<\/li>\n
    3. Each stage is a significant transformation of the stage before it.<\/li>\n
    4. Each later stage incorporated the earlier stages into itself.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Basically this is the \u201cstaircase\u201d model of development mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. Piaget proposed four major stages of cognitive development, and called them (1) sensorimotor intelligence, (2) preoperational thinking, (3) concrete operational thinking, and (4) formal operational thinking. Each stage is correlated with an age period of childhood, but only approximately.<\/p>\n

      The sensorimotor stage: birth to age 2<\/h2>\n

      In Piaget\u2019s theory, the sensorimotor stage is first, and is defined as the period when infants \u201cthink\u201d by means of their senses and motor actions. As every new parent will attest, infants continually touch, manipulate, look, listen to, and even bite and chew objects. According to Piaget, these actions allow them to learn about the world and are crucial to their early cognitive development.<\/p>\n

      The infant\u2019s actions allow the child to represent (or construct simple concepts of) objects and events. A toy animal may be just a confusing array of sensations at first, but by looking, feeling, and manipulating it repeatedly, the child gradually organizes her sensations and actions into a stable concept, toy animal<\/em>. The representation acquires a permanence lacking in the individual experiences of the object, which are constantly changing. Because the representation is stable, the child \u201cknows,\u201d or at least believes, that toy animal exists even if the actual toy animal<\/em> is temporarily out of sight. Piaget called this sense of stability object permanence<\/strong>, a belief that objects exist whether or not they are actually present. It is a major achievement of sensorimotor development, and marks a qualitative transformation in how older infants (24 months) think about experience compared to younger infants (6 months).<\/p>\n

      During much of infancy, of course, a child can only barely talk, so sensorimotor development initially happens without the support of language. It might therefore seem hard to know what infants are thinking, but Piaget devised\u00a0several simple, but clever experiments to get around their lack of language, and that suggest that infants do indeed represent objects even without being able to talk (Piaget, 1952). In one, for example, he simply hid an object (like a toy animal) under a blanket. He found that doing so consistently prompts older infants (18\u201324 months) to search for the object, but fails to prompt younger infants (less than six months) to do so. (You can try this experiment yourself if you happen to have access to young infant.) \u201cSomething\u201d motivates the search by the older infant even without the benefit of much language, and the \u201csomething\u201d is presumed to be a permanent concept or representation of the object.<\/p>\n

      The preoperational stage: age 2 to 7<\/h2>\n

      In the preoperational stage<\/strong>, children use their new ability to represent objects in a wide variety of activities, but they do not yet do it in ways that are organized or fully logical. One of the most obvious examples of this kind of cognition is dramatic play<\/strong>, the improvised make-believe of preschool children. If you have ever had responsibility for children of this age, you have likely witnessed such play. Ashley holds a plastic banana to her ear and says: \u201cHello, Mom? Can you be sure to bring me my baby doll? OK!\u201d Then she hangs up the banana and pours tea for Jeremy into an invisible cup. Jeremy giggles at the sight of all of this and exclaims: \u201cRinnng! Oh Ashley, the phone is ringing again! You better answer it.\u201d And on it goes.<\/p>\n

      In a way, children immersed in make-believe seem \u201cmentally insane,\u201d in that they do not think realistically. But they are not truly insane because they have not really taken leave of their senses. At some level, Ashley and Jeremy always know that the banana is still a banana and not really<\/em> a telephone; they are merely representing<\/em> it as a telephone. They are thinking on two levels at once\u2014one imaginative and the other realistic. This dual processing of experience makes dramatic play an early example of metacognition<\/strong>, or reflecting on and monitoring of thinking itself. Metacognition is a highly desirable skill for success in school, one that teachers often encourage (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Paley, 2005). Partly for this reason, teachers of young children (preschool, kindergarten, and even first or second grade) often make time and space in their classrooms for dramatic play, and sometimes even participate in it themselves to help develop the play further.<\/p>\n

      The concrete operational stage: age 7 to 11<\/h2>\n

      As children continue into elementary school, they become able to represent ideas and events more flexibly and logically. Their rules of thinking still seem very basic by adult standards and usually operate unconsciously, but they allow children to solve problems more systematically than before, and therefore to be successful with many academic tasks. In the concrete operational stage, for example, a child may unconsciously follow the rule: \u201cIf nothing is added or taken away, then the amount of something stays the same.\u201d This simple principle helps children to understand certain arithmetic tasks, such as in adding or subtracting zero from a number, as well as to do certain classroom science experiments, such as ones involving judgments of the amounts of liquids when mixed. Piaget called this period the concrete operational stage<\/strong> because children mentally \u201coperate\u201d on concrete objects and events. They are not yet able, however, to operate (or think) systematically about representations<\/em> of objects or events. Manipulating representations is a more abstract skill that develops later, during adolescence.<\/p>\n

      Concrete operational thinking differs from preoperational thinking in two ways, each of which renders children more skilled as students. One difference is reversibility<\/strong>, or the ability to think about the steps of a process in any order. Imagine a simple science experiment, for example, such as one that explores why objects sink or float by having a child place an assortment of objects in a basin of water. Both the preoperational and concrete operational\u00a0child can recall and describe the steps in this experiment, but only the concrete operational child can recall them in any order<\/em>. This skill is very helpful on any task involving multiple steps\u2014a common feature of tasks in the classroom. In teaching new vocabulary from a story, for another example, a teacher might tell students: \u201cFirst make a list of words in the story that you do not know, then find and write down their definitions, and finally get a friend to test you on your list.\u201d These directions involve repeatedly remembering to move back and forth between a second step and a first\u2014a task that concrete operational students\u2014and most adults\u2014find easy, but that preoperational children often forget to do or find confusing. If the younger children are to do this task reliably, they may need external prompts, such as having the teacher remind them periodically to go back to the story to look for more unknown words<\/p>\n

      The other new feature of thinking during the concrete operational stage is the child\u2019s ability to decenter<\/strong>, or focus on more than one feature of a problem at a time. There are hints of decentration in preschool children\u2019s dramatic play, which requires being aware on two levels at once\u2014knowing that a banana can be both a banana and a \u201ctelephone.\u201d But the decentration of the concrete operational stage is more deliberate and conscious than preschoolers\u2019 make-believe. Now the child can attend to two things at once quite purposely. Suppose you give students a sheet with an assortment of subtraction problems on it, and ask them to do this: \u201cFind all of the problems that involve two-digit subtraction and<\/em> that involve borrowing from the next column. Circle and solve only<\/em> those problems.\u201d Following these instructions is quite possible for a concrete operational student (as long as they have been listening!) because the student can attend to the two subtasks simultaneously\u2014finding the two-digit problems and<\/em> identifying which actually involve borrowing. (Whether the student actually knows how to \u201cborrow\u201d however, is a separate question.)<\/p>\n

      In real classroom tasks, reversibility and decentration often happen together. A well-known example of joint presence is Piaget\u2019s experiments with conservation<\/strong>, the belief that an amount or quantity stays the same even if it changes apparent size or shape (Piaget, 2001; Matthews, 1998). Imagine two identical balls made of clay. Any child, whether preoperational or concrete operational, will agree that the two indeed have the same amount of clay in them simply because they look the same. But if you now squish one ball into a long, thin \u201chot dog,\u201d the preoperational child is likely to say that the amount of that ball has changed\u2014either because it is longer or because it is thinner, but at any rate because it now looks different. The concrete operational child will not make this mistake, thanks to new cognitive skills of reversibility and decentration: for him or her, the amount is the same because \u201cyou could squish it back into a ball again\u201d (reversibility) and because \u201cit may be longer, but it is also thinner\u201d (decentration). Piaget would say the concrete operational child \u201chas conservation of quantity.\u201d<\/p>\n

      The classroom examples described above also involve reversibility and decentration. As already mentioned, the vocabulary activity described earlier requires reversibility (going back and forth between identifying words and looking up their meanings); but it can also be construed as an example of decentration (keeping in mind two tasks at once\u2014word identification and<\/em> dictionary search). And as mentioned, the arithmetic activity requires decentration (looking for problems that meet two criteria and<\/em> also solving them), but it can also be construed as an example of reversibility (going back and forth between subtasks, as with the vocabulary activity). Either way, the development of concrete operational skills support students in doing many basic academic tasks; in a sense they make ordinary schoolwork possible<\/p>\n

      The formal operational stage: age 11 and beyond<\/h2>\n

      In the last of the Piagetian stages, the child becomes able to reason not only about tangible objects and events, but also about hypothetical or abstract ones. Hence it has the name formal operational stage<\/strong>\u2014the period when the individual can \u201coperate\u201d on \u201cforms\u201d or representations. With students at this level, the teacher can pose hypothetical (or contrary-to-fact) problems: \u201cWhat if<\/em> the world had never discovered oil?\u201d or \u201cWhat if<\/em> the first European explorers had settled first in California instead of on the East Coast of the United States?\u201d To answer such questions, students must use hypothetical reasoning<\/strong>, meaning that they must manipulate ideas that vary in several ways at once, and do so entirely in their minds<\/p>\n

      The hypothetical reasoning that concerned Piaget primarily involved scientific problems. His studies of formal operational thinking therefore often look like problems that middle or high school teachers pose in science classes. In one problem, for example, a young person is presented with a simple pendulum, to which different amounts of weight can be hung (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). The experimenter asks: \u201cWhat determines how fast the pendulum swings: the length of the string holding it, the weight attached to it, or the distance that it is pulled to the side?\u201d The young person is not allowed to solve this problem by trial-and-error with the materials themselves, but must reason a way to the solution mentally. To do so systematically, he or she must imagine varying each factor separately, while also imagining the other factors that are held constant. This kind of thinking requires facility at manipulating mental representations of the relevant objects and actions\u2014precisely the skill that defines formal operations.<\/p>\n

      As you might suspect, students with an ability to think hypothetically have an advantage in many kinds of school work: by definition, they require relatively few \u201cprops\u201d to solve problems. In this sense they can in principle be more self-directed than students who rely only on concrete operations\u2014certainly a desirable quality in the opinion of most teachers. Note, though, that formal operational thinking is desirable but not sufficient for school success, and that it is far from being the only way that students achieve educational success. Formal thinking skills do not insure that a student is motivated or well-behaved, for example, nor does it guarantee other desirable skills, such as ability at sports, music, or art. The fourth stage in Piaget\u2019s theory is really about a particular kind of formal thinking, the kind needed to solve scientific problems and devise scientific experiments. Since many people do not normally deal with such problems in the normal course of their lives, it should be no surprise that research finds that many people never achieve or use formal thinking fully or consistently, or that they use it only in selected areas with which they are very familiar (Case & Okomato, 1996). For teachers, the limitations of Piaget’s ideas suggest a need for additional theories about development\u2014ones that focus more directly on the social and interpersonal issues of childhood and adolescence. The next sections describe some of these.<\/p>\n

      References<\/h2>\n

      Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice, Revised edition.<\/em> Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.<\/p>\n

      Case, R. & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in children\u2019s thought<\/em>. Chicago: Society for Research on Child Development.<\/p>\n

      Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the growth of formal operational structures<\/em>. New York: Basic Books.<\/p>\n

      Matthews, G. (1998). The philosophy of childhood<\/em>. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n

      Paley, V. (2005). A child\u2019s work: The importance of fantasy play<\/em>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

      Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children<\/em>. New York: International Universities Press.<\/p>\n

      Piaget, J. (2001). The psychology of intelligence<\/em>. Oxford, UK: Routledge<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t

      Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
      CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>