Science should be taught as an inquiry-driven process, not as a static collection of facts to be memorized. It is also important to organize the concepts and terms that are learned in a way that reduces the world around the student to a logical system. The central purpose of American education is, or should be, helping the student develop the ability to think critically; that is, for the general populace to be able to gather and evaluate data, formulate an explanation and/or viewpoint and use appropriate terminology, and extend and apply it to their lives and prior learning. This correlates to Piaget’s Mental Functioning Model, which in turn is a component of his Theory of Intelligence, along with his Stages or Levels Model. This paper is a description and explanation of the graphic I have prepared to illustrate the overall Model of Intelligence as put forward by Piaget.
The attached graphic is intended to show the components and their relationships in Piaget’s model of intelligence. Mental functioning, content, and structures are represented as a flow chart or concept map, from top to bottom. Disequilibrium, as one of the four factors that drive development through the cognitive stages of development, is at the bottom, with the other three related factors. The four cognitive stages of development are shown progressing from right to left, with each stage encompassing the one(s) preceding it.
This leads to Piaget's model of mental functioning, or how we learn, and cultural differences notwithstanding, it applies to all humans. First is Piaget’s concept of assimilation as new information in the form of data and observations is acquired from the environment. Disequilibrium occurs as the new data is temporarily in conflict with one’s current mental structures. This conflict is reconciled as accommodation, or an understanding of the new mental function, occurs. Adaptation refers to the development of new mental structures, or schemes, as assimilation and accommodation take place. The organization of the new concept occurs as it is “filed” in our mental filing cabinet as one extends and applies it through various means and examines the new concept in different contexts. I must emphasize that research indicates this model accurately describes how we all think in all situations, cultural and societal influences notwithstanding.
Human intelligence is a concept that can be difficult to define, or defined in various ways. For our purposes the intelligence of an individual can be defined and graphically represented as consisting of four components:
• Quality of Thought (Stages) Model
• Mental Functioning
• Mental Structures
• Mental Content
The four stages of cognition or quality of thought are in order, sensorimotor, which is from birth to approximately 2.5 years old and is characterized by no object permanence, reflexive physical actions, no concept of space, time, self, or cause/effect, and no language development. This is followed by the preoperational stage from approximately 2 to 7 years of age in which children imitate, play, and talk but are also characterized by egocentrism and irreversibility. Also in this stage children recognize the permanence of objects, begin to conserve quantity, and conceptualize time, space, self, and cause/effect. Next is the concrete operational stage from 6 or 7 years of age to between 15 and 20 in which the child begins to use the mental operations of seriation, classification, correspondence, reversal, decentering, and inductive and deductive reasoning. Therefore, children in this stage can by the end of the stage conserve quantity, understand elementary geometry, and conduct practical play, imitation, and language. The final stage is called formal operational and in it hypothetico-deductive and abstract thought/language is finally realized. This stage is also characterized by combinatorial/propositional logic, understanding of relative space and time, reflective capacity, and recognition of the ideal self. Therefore, in this stage people can view the world from a perspective other than their own, formulate abstractions, and employ advanced logic. It is important to note that we do not move into one stage and leave the previous ones behind. Instead, elements of previous stages provide the underpinnings of subsequent stages, as represented in the attached diagram. The four factors associated with cognitive development, or movement through the stages, are:
• Maturation
• Physical and Logical-Mathematical Experiences
• Social Interaction and Transmission
• Disequilibrium
Maturation is the natural physiological process of growth and development that takes place as our bodies and in particular our nervous systems, advance and change throughout our lives. Physical and logical-mathematical experiences refer to the encounters we have with stimuli in our internal and external environments during our lifespan. Social interactions and transmissions are the shaping we undergo as we interact with other humans. Especially important here are the interactions with our families as children and our early schooling, as well as the culture(s) we are part of. Disequilibrium is discussed below.
It is changes in the mental structures and mental content that result from mental functioning as described by Piaget, as well as movement through the cognitive stages of development. In other words, mental structures are processes in the brain used to deal with incoming data, and differences in their nature and complexity distinguish one intellectual stage from another. Schemes are the basic unit of mental structures, and as new data is incorporated into existing structures assimilation occurs. Disequilibrium, or the mismatch between pre-existing mental structures and what has occurred, causes new schemes to develop, which is also known as accommodation. These new schemes or structures need to be properly aligned and placed among previous ones, and this is essentially organization. Mental content is how a child believes he or she sees the world, or how the child believes the world works. Put another way, mental content is how a person believes the world looks, and is a variant that cannot be separated from the structure and function components. In order to change content, the entire structure/function system must be turned back on and disequilibrium reestablished. It is important to recognize Piaget’s model of intelligence as a guiding descriptor for how we all respond and change mentally and physically throughout our lives, in all situations and at all ages.
In my experience, and in the literature, Piaget’s model of intelligence and its application in terms of learning cycles in the classroom hold up well. After teaching 3-12th grade science for 17 years, I realize many of my lessons were constructivist in nature, without me necessarily being cognizant of the terminology or original theories. Not having been grounded in a definite theory base as a science educator, I did however employ much exposition, particularly in my advanced high school classes. I essentially utilized what I refer to as a “shotgun” or “scattergun” approach to my teaching, believing that if I exposed the students to a concept in as many different ways as possible, the majority would, through some combination of teaching approaches and their own efforts, learn what they were supposed to. After my exposure to learning cycles in a summer workshop a few years ago, I was immediately a strong supporter and advocate of this teaching approach grounded in Piagetian theories, especially for younger students such as I was teaching at the time.
Despite this, I do occasionally have questions or concerns about constructivism, Piaget’s model, and learning cycles. For instance, initially it appeared to me that learning cycles simply reverse the “I” and the “V” in the traditional Inform, Verify, and Practice (IVP) teaching approach. This was hard for me to accept initially, and is still one of the most common complaints and/or criticisms I hear from students and other teachers, especially those that have yet to develop a comprehensive understanding of the theory base that supports the use of learning cycles in the classroom. Another point, as I described in my article summaries for this course, is that practitioners and researchers must be aware of cultural and social influences and factors concerning Piaget’s ideas and their applications. It can be problematic to try to assess the thinking process through language, for instance. Also, different cultures place varying values on different traits or characteristics in an individual. The population and sample sizes employed by Piaget might have been too small for universal applicability of his perceived results. For instance, many of his observations were based on his own children, presenting the problem of a very small n. In my opinion, Piaget seems to be guilty of sometimes just describing what was going as he observed, and often left it to others to try to explain and/or duplicate his results. Matthews (1997) stated that the reproducibility of Piaget’s work had more to do with the methods he employed than the actual cognitive stage of his subjects. I also believe that the stages of development are often presented as being sharply delineated, when in reality we are often in an overlapping or blended configuration as we develop, grow, mature, and experience the world. Modern neurobiological studies (Anderson, 2006) are supporting Piaget’s conclusions, which I find interesting. It would be interesting if Piaget had done more research on individuals beyond their teen years. Also, I have always been intrigued by the idea of a “super-formal” or “post-formal” stage, possibly exemplified by people like Einstein whose apparent mentally processes far exceed the majority of the population.
Bibliographic Note:
Rodger Bybee and Robert Sund, Piaget for Educators, (Prospect Heights, IL, Waveland Press, 1990).
Edmund Marek and Ann Cavallo, The Learning Cycle: Elementary School Science and Beyond, (Portsmouth NH, Heinemann, 1997).
National Science Education Standards from the National Academy of Sciences, 1995.
EDSC 5523 Class notes
Anderson, O. R. (1992). Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory, with implications for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(10), 1037-1058.
Matthews, P.S.C. 1997. Problems with Piagetian Constructivism. Science &
Education. 6, 105-119.
No comments:
Post a Comment