Genetic Epistemology (J. Piaget)

[Da Blob]

http://www.piaget.org/links.html (a very useful site for those interested in Knowledge)

Over a period of six decades, Jean Piaget conducted a program of naturalistic research that has profoundly affected our understanding of child development. Piaget called his general theoretical framework "genetic epistemology" because he was primarily interested in how knowledge developed in human organisms. Piaget had a background in both Biology and Philosophy and concepts from both these disciplines influences his theories and research of child development.

The concept of cognitive structure is central to his theory. Cognitive structures are patterns of physical or mental action that underlie specific acts of intelligence and correspond to stages of child development (see Schemas). There are four primary cognitive structures (i.e., development stages) according to Piaget: sensorimotor, preoperations, concrete operations, and formal operations. In the sensorimotor stage (0-2 years), intelligence takes the form of motor actions. Intelligence in the preoperation period (3-7 years) is intutive in nature. The cognitive structure during the concrete operational stage (8-11 years) is logical but depends upon concrete referents. In the final stage of formal operations (12-15 years), thinking involves abstractions.

Cognitive structures change through the processes of adaptation: assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation involves the interpretation of events in terms of existing cognitive structure whereas accommodation refers to changing the cognitive structure to make sense of the environment. Cognitive development consists of a constant effort to adapt to the environment in terms of assimilation and accommodation. In this sense, Piaget's theory is similar in nature to other constructivist perspectives of learning (e.g., Bruner, Vygotsky).

While the stages of cognitive development identified by Piaget are associated with characteristic age spans, they vary for every individual. Furthermore, each stage has many detailed structural forms. For example, the concrete operational period has more than forty distinct structures covering classification and relations, spatial relationships, time, movement, chance, number, conservation and measurement. Similar detailed analysis of intellectual functions is provided by theories of intelligence such as Guilford, Gardner, and Sternberg.

Scope/Application:

Piaget explored the implications of his theory to all aspects of cognition, intelligence and moral development. Many of Piaget's experiments were focused on the development of mathematical and logical concepts. He found that humans will provide different explanations of reality at different stages of cognitive development.

Seemingly, there are a number of forum members who are in the transition phase between Concrete and Formal operations stages of cognitive growth. To know something about the process might make the transition easier to deal with...(?)
EDIT: Complimentary, there may be a few forum members who have made it to the fifth stage of Cognitive development, the stage that Piaget did not do much work with because few individuals make it to that stage, so he could not incorporate that stage into his general theory of epistemology...

 

[Kidege]

Most of the forum members are in the 5th stage, even the young ones, who unsurprisingly for this place, are "gifted" people.

 

[Da Blob]

Most of the forum members are in the 5th stage, even the young ones, who unsurprisingly for this place, are "gifted" people.

Ummm I really do not think so, at best the fifth stage is accessed by only one out of a thousands humans...
Plus knowledge of the stages allows one to categorize comments as to the level of thought involved. People use all four cognitive structures even as adults. There have been many comments posted that reflect a concrete rather than a formal expression of one's opinion on a certain issue...

 

[Kidege]

knowledge of the stages allows one to categorize comments as to the level of thought involved.

It does. Rather.



When you declare Piaget's theory is similar to Vygotsky's, how do you solve their basic metaphysical divergence that carries onto their epistemology?

 

[Da Blob]

It does. Rather.



When you declare Piaget's theory is similar to Vygotsky's, how do you solve their basic metaphysical divergence that carries onto their epistemology?

Although Vygotsky is purported to be an advocate of the Social Learning theory, that is an infant has to be taught everything in order to become fully human and Piaget suggests that all learning is of an individual nature, I do not see these as being mutually exclusive POVs. That is to say, I do not think one can teach a child something it is incapable, or lacks the motivation to learn, so that Piaget wins out. One can train a child in the manner one conditions a dog, the social learning aspect, but we, hopefully are speaking of the type of knowledge that is unique to humans.

That being said, I think Vygotsky's work is very valuable if applied to Piaget's model. The ability to recognize the nature of the cognitive challenges facing a child at a given stage and providing 'scaffolding' to allow the child to learn one small step at a time, instead of having to make great leaps in intuition to progress and develop mentally, is perhaps the best form of education.
Social Learning theory can be used to provide an 'ideal' environment to learn. However, It is always the child's choice to learn or be trained instead. Such is the basis of discipline.

 

[Kidege]

Although Vygotsky is purported to be an advocate of the Social Learning theory, that is an infant has to be taught everything in order to become fully human and Piaget suggests that all learning is of an individual nature, I do not see these as being mutually exclusive POVs. That is to say, I do not think one can teach a child something it is incapable, or lacks the motivation to learn, so that Piaget wins out. One can train a child in the manner one conditions a dog, the social learning aspect, but we, hopefully are speaking of the type of knowledge that is unique to humans.

I wonder what you mean by "purported to be".

Social learning doesn't refer to social conditioning. It simply means that we are social beings, that we learn social content (and probably cannot learn anything but social content, but I digress) and that we learn in a context, among other beings.

That being said, I think Vygotsky's work is very valuable if applied to Piaget's model.

I differ. To put it colloquially, Vygotsky pwns Piaget. (I hope I haven't broken your vision of formal thinking by making a joke).

Piaget doesn't "win out" because he takes motivation into account. He loses because in his metaphysics there's a gap between the subject and the object, and only activity to close it. This isn't enough to explain how we learn. Vygotsky however turns "object" into an object within a context, and the subject into a network of intersubjectivity.

The ability to recognize the nature of the cognitive challenges facing a child at a given stage and providing 'scaffolding' to allow the child to learn one small step at a time, instead of having to make great leaps in intuition to progress and develop mentally, is perhaps the best form of education.

This, Vygotsky would say, depends on what the particular individual is capable of doing. We N types can and often "make great leaps in intuition".

Social Learning theory can be used to provide an 'ideal' environment to learn. However, It is always the child's choice to learn or be trained instead. Such is the basis of discipline.

Discipline is quite another matter. While it is tied to motivation, there many other factors to take into account, starting with the purpose, the methods, the concept one has of a human being's needs, interests and legitimate behaviour, the function of mistakes, the specific context for discipline, the function of the group... It would be out of topic.

 

[Da Blob]

I wonder what you mean by "purported to be".
Social Learning is a behaviorist school of thought, I believe Bandura, who espouse it in the 60's was categorized as a neo-behaviorist. Vygotsky's work preceded Bandura by three decades and I do not know if he would cared to be categorized as a Behaviorist.

Social learning doesn't refer to social conditioning. It simply means that we are social beings, that we learn social content (and probably cannot learn anything but social content, but I digress) and that we learn in a context, among other beings.
LOL -yes it does neo-behaviorism is all about classical conditioning in the Pavlovian sense. We learn how to operate the human nervous system, before we learn anything else from the external environment, including social conditioning


I differ. To put it colloquially, Vygotsky pwns Piaget. (I hope I haven't broken your vision of formal thinking by making a joke).

Piaget doesn't "win out" because he takes motivation into account. He loses because in his metaphysics there's a gap between the subject and the object, and only activity to close it. This isn't enough to explain how we learn. Vygotsky however turns "object" into an object within a context, and the subject into a network of intersubjectivity.
No there is not a gap, the Object is a subset of the Subject...



This, Vygotsky would say, depends on what the particular individual is capable of doing. We N types can and often "make great leaps in intuition".
But these individual differences have to indicate a genetic epistemology if the environment is the same...yes?


.

!

 

[Kidege]

I do not know if he would cared to be categorized as a Behaviorist

Taking into account that behaviourism is now widely believe to be passé, and neo-behaviourism is believed to be regressive, I'd say he wouldn't.

LOL -yes it does

Social learning AS PORTRAYED by Vygotsky is exactly what I said. Shall we call it "socialized learning" instead?

No there is not a gap, the Object is a subset of the Subject...

Care to expound?
If this were true, I'd start questioning Piaget's sanity, or at the very least his coherence.

But these individual differences have to indicate a genetic epistemology if the environment is the same...yes?

This would mean a genetic "disposition", not a genetic "epistemology". And it doesn't invalidate my comment or Vygotsky's applicability.

 

[Da Blob]

The Object is the Subset of the Subject throughout the Concrete Operations stage. It is only at the Formal Operations stage does the ability to conceive an objective universe develop. It is mentioned that Piaget discovered that child described living in different realities at different stages. The reality of a child is a self-centered one based on personal experience.

There was quite a debate among philosophers at one point of history concerning the nature of reality whether "if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a noise" kinda thing. Turns out both sides were correct. In the Concrete operations reality, that which is not experienced Subjectively does not exist, Whereas in the Formal Operations stage, it is possible to attain an abstract POV where the Subject is is simply another Object amongst Objects in an Objective universe...

As far as getting into the old Nature versus Nurture debate, via the genetics versus environment corollary, I think I will pass. It seems obvious that neither is totally responsible for outcomes and they are confounded variables that cannot be separated for scientific analysis.

 

[Kidege]

In the Concrete operations reality, that which is not experienced Subjectively does not exist,

For the subject in question, not in the metaphysical sense. You're mixing two different planes of the theory.

Edit:

And the same goes for two different usages of the word "genetic". I wasn't proposing a debate on nature vs. nurture.

 

[Da Blob]

For the subject in question, not in the metaphysical sense. You're mixing two different planes of the theory.
The metaphysical plane does not even exist until the Formal Operations stage so how can it be relevant at the Concrete Operational stage?
Edit:

And the same goes for two different usages of the word "genetic". I wasn't proposing a debate on nature vs. nurture.
Sorry, if I misunderstood, it just seems like very often the Piaget - Vygotsky difference in perspective is presented as such a dichotomy. Again I believe that they are both valid POVs tied together by the human ability to Imitate, a subject addressed in detail by both Piaget and Vygotsky. Bandura even offered some valid input on that groundbreaking phenomena that could not explained by the traditional behaviorist doctrine...

..

 

[Kidege]

a) I rest my case.

b) Okay.

 

[wadlez]

I found this:

Seemingly, there are a number of forum members who are in the transition phase between Concrete and Formal operations stages of cognitive growth. To know something about the process might make the transition easier to deal with...(?)

Halarious.

 

[wadlez]

Sorry for double posting but I cant find anything anywhere about this fifth stage.
I have learnt the first four stages at uni and its says there are only four

 

[Da Blob]

Sorry for double posting but I cant find anything anywhere about this fifth stage.
I have learnt the first four stages at uni and its says there are only four

Truth, not much available about the fifth stage, not much has been published, about the only thing you might find is an old study by Arlin. Neo-Piagetians have trouble getting published - in fact, I think only three of them are listed in the roles of 'accepted' academia.

However, I wonder how deep you went at university in this topic? Whereas, Piaget assumed that everyone reached the Formal Operations stage at puberty or thereabouts, conjunctive with the maturation of the brain subsequent studies proved that not to be the case. Only a third of the population reaches that stage at adolescence, another third reaches that stage at 19 -21 years of age and the final third may never reach that stage. This is why Piaget is not popular, this fact is so philosophical repugnant or politically incorrect to so many - the idea that one third of the population operate with a child's mindset. (including a few members of this forum)

 

[Agent Intellect]

Is the fifth stage similar to the post-formal, or systematic, stages in the MHC (model of hierarchical complexity)?

While some people on this forum may be a bit myopic at times, I doubt many of them are incapable of hypothetical deductive reasoning and abstract thinking. Somehow I can't help but think if you wrote up a list of these 'perpetrators', it would primarily consist of those that were debating against you in the philosophy forum.

 

[Jennywocky]

Is the fifth stage similar to the post-formal, or systematic, stages in the MHC (model of hierarchical complexity)?

While some people on this forum may be a bit myopic at times, I doubt many of them are incapable of hypothetical deductive reasoning and abstract thinking. Somehow I can't help but think if you wrote up a list of these 'perpetrators', it would primarily consist of those that were debating against you in the philosophy forum.

How hypothetically deductive and abstractedly rational of you to say!

 

[Agent Intellect]

How hypothetically deductive and abstractedly rational of you to say!

I'm still in the sensorimotor stage.

 

[Kidege]

I've been avoiding this.

Without using the internet, I can only find reference to 3 stages: sensorimotor, concrete operations (with a preoperational substage), and formal operations.

All the stages have substages, which is perhaps what Blob is talking about (Or it may be, as he just hinted, a neo-piagetian theory).

For instance, the sensorimotor stage has six substages: the first is about reflexes, the second about basic habits, the third is a transition period in which the kid coordinates vision and grasp, etc.

I heard somewhere that Piaget himself said that entire populations never reach the formal operations stage. I can't find the reference but that would negate the affirmation that Piaget assumed everybody reached that stage.

(including a few members of this forum)

And this is Blob being Blob.

 

[wadlez]

Today in my human development lecture they went into a possible 5th stage of human development.
The lecturer said it was highly debatable if there was one, but a post formal stage is called relativistic operations which was coined by sinnott.
Then as an example of why there may be a fifth stage she gave us an example of roommates arguing over how there kitchen should be organised. In this situation each person has an opinion on the organisation, but people have there interests in mind which will shape this opinion (aswell as other factors like in group power struggles, emotions etc). Postformal thinking would be objectively and logically making a decision without these other influences.

Most people I know cannot think objectivly like I can in these situations. Which could be because my primary function is Thinking whilst theres is not

 

[Da Blob]

Well the relativistic operations as described would fit into the general pattern of transcendental POVs adding an additional dimension at each stage. A great deal of cognitive development is simply concerned with the development of sophisticated Points of Views, frames of references, attitudes. The cool thing about comprehending relativity as a fifth stage is that it seemingly calls for the maintaining of two separate POVs at the same time...(?) I just assumed that the next stage involved a single point of view in an additional (5th) dimension...

Ummm and Yes, fifth stage speculation is post-Piaget or neo-Piaget...

EDIT: and yes Piaget, himself, lumped the sensori-motor and pre-operational stages together as a single stage so that his initial model was just three stages, not the four of S-M, PO, CO and FO...