Jean Piaget (1930s): Cognitive Development
Prior to the 1930’s, children - particularly their minds - were often thought of as simply mini-adults. This was the common theory and in accordance to how children were treated in their
education and in society. That is until Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist and self-proclaimed “Genetic Epistemologist,” started to observe his own nephew and daughter and came to the conclusion that the way children and adults think may not be so similar (Cherry, 2019). This was made much clearer to Piaget as he began developing questions for intelligence tests for the Binet Institute and was intrigued with children’s reasoning for incorrect answers. Piaget was the first psychologist to make systematic study of cognitive development and developed simple tests to reveal different cognitive abilities (McLeod, 2018). Out of observations and tests of his hypothesis, Piaget developed his Theory of Cognitive Development. This theory is based on three basic components of schema, processes of adaptation and stages of cognitive development. Schema which are the building blocks of knowledge are units we relate to the world including objects, actions and abstract concepts. These are simple linked mental representations of the world which we use to understand and to respond to situations, we store them and apply them when needed. Schemas might be as simple as an infant’s sucking reflex which is triggered by something touching their lips or as “sophisticated” as buying a meal in a restaurant, which is similar to going through a script: look at menu, order food, eat food, pay bill (McLeod, 2018). We don’t have to dive deep into our brains to obtain food from a restaurant, instead we work off of a script we have seen and practiced for years. I believe this is the frustrating thought as we teach concepts that we have developed in our adult brains as simple schema to students that have never tried out or heard of the concept they can’t relate these concepts to their schema. I get that all the time while I’m coaching football. I catch myself wondering why the players can’t get a particular play or the concept of the game in general, then I think about how this group of kids has always been told to play nice and not too rough since the time they were able to interact with others. Adaptation or adjustment is viewed as intellectual growth by Piaget. This occurs through one of three ways: the first being assimilation which allows them to draw from existing schema to deal with a new object or situation, the second is accommodation when existing schema doesn’t work and needs changed to deal with a new object or situation, and finally equilibration. Equilibration is the force which drives development further. In Piaget’s theory cognitive development doesn’t progress as a steady rate, but by leaps and bounds. We, by nature, do not like to be frustrated and will seek to restore balance by mastering new challenges (McLeod, 2018). The last component is the four stages of cognitive development. The four stages are something each child goes through in the same order and the rate at which they travel through the stages is determined by biological maturation and interaction with the environment. Although there are age parameters on each stage, Piaget claimed that a particular stage was not achieved by age alone and some individuals may never attain the later stages. The first stage is the sensorimotor stage – birth to 2 yrs. – the main achievement during this stage is object permanence, knowing an object still exists, even when hidden. The second stage is the pre-operational stage – 2 to 7 yrs. – when children can think about things symbolically. Children can make one thing, whether an object or a word, stand for something other than itself. The third stage, which is the turning point in cognitive development, is the concrete operational stage – 7 to 11 yrs. – marking the beginning of logical or operational thought. This means a child can work things out internally, the classic example of conservation understanding numbers, mass and weight and identifying that quantity stays the same even though appearance may change. Through research, I found a simple and fun test is pouring liquid into two equal sized cups with equal volume of liquid and asking a child which has more and the child should state they are equal. Then transferring one into a larger bowl and one into a taller skinnier glass and asking which has more, children in the concrete operational stage can justify that it is the same amount of liquid and they are equal, while children in the pre-operational stage would denote that the taller skinnier glass had more liquid. The fourth and final stage is the formal operation stage – 11 yrs. and over – this stage lasts into adulthood and people develop the ability to think about abstract concepts and logically test hypotheses (McLeod, 2018).
Although Piaget did not set out to relate his theory of cognitive development to education, researchers have shown how certain features of his theory can be applied to learning and classroom teaching. Piaget’s work has been extremely influential in developing policies and practices in education systems and classrooms throughout the world. Discovery learning, which is the idea children learn best through actively exploring and doing, has transformed curriculum at the primary school level. The Lowden report of 1967 had themes of individual learning, flexibility in curriculum, play, the environment and the importance in evaluation and that not only what is measurable is of value. The report was based strongly on Piaget’s theory and according to Piaget, assimilation and accommodation require an active learner because problem-solving cannot be taught to passive learners – it must be discovered (McLeod, 2018). Cognitive readiness, based on biological maturation and stages, was also brought forefront by Piaget’s research. Readiness focuses on certain information and concepts being taught when cognitive development allows. The ideas of student-centered learning accomplished through active discovery and teacher facilitated learning rather than direct it are all concepts coming from Piaget’s theory. A checklist, so to speak, for teachers is to focus on the process of learning, rather than the end product of it. This is for teachers to not only check a student’s answer, but to understand how the student arrived at that answer, what process did the student go through. It is only after this that they can build on the students’ cognitive functioning. Secondly, recognize how crucial children’s self-initiated, active involvement in learning activities are. The student being able to discover things for themselves through spontaneous interactions with the environment, rather than presenting ready-made knowledge. Third, a de-emphasis on practices aimed at making children adult-like in their thinking. Teachers in the United States were interested and questioned Piaget on how they could speed up child cognitive development and his response was premature teaching could be worse than no teaching at all and could debilitate true cognitive understanding. Finally, on the checklist is the acceptance of individual differences in developmental progress. Knowing that children progress through the cognitive stages at different rates and measuring against their own previous development not in terms of normative standards by the performance of their peers (Nicola, 2016). This last one makes me tremble inside, in my twenty years as an educator we have been through CSAP, TCAP, PARC and now SAT which are all measuring individuals along the cognitive stages against their peers. When will the growth shown from year to year and stage to stage count more for a student than their percentile categories?
Lee Canter (1970s): Assertive Discipline
I wish I knew when I was in Kindergarten with Mrs. McConnell that I would someday be writing an essay about the discipline structure that she carried on in her classroom. I remember her writing my name on the board and continually adding check marks next to it as the day went on. What I didn’t realize then is how controversial Mrs. McConnell’s
discipline style would become in the coming years. The type of discipline that my first ever professional teacher utilized is modernly known as “Assertive Discipline” and was developed by Lee and Marlene Canter in the 1970’s, but quickly became widespread across the country (Hill, 1990). The main driver for the creation of this assertive discipline theory was when Lee Canter encountered a teacher who had the attitude that student misbehavior would not get in the way of instruction. After observing this teacher, he and his wife came up with assertive discipline to help drive the idea that a classroom could be managed without interruption (Gallop, LaChac, Menasha, 2012). However, Lee Canter is no longer a proponent of the original ‘name on the chalkboard’ tactic that I experienced in the early 1980’s and it began to stir up emotions among parents and educators alike. He became known as the marble in the jar and name on the board guy. Several invested people thought this theory would label students and tag them for the rest of their educational journey as “bad”. They didn’t really see the positive reinforcement side, only the negative consequential side. They saw these consequences as humiliating and embarrassing to the students that they were being publicly criticized in front of their peers for their behavior. Although, when the Canters originally released their theory, their main focus was not necessarily on discipline, but actually on the rewards and incentives. In order for assertive discipline to provide an accomplished outcome, the teacher must have specific expectations that are posted for students. Other central ideas behind assertive discipline are to catch students who are well-behaved and reward them, to be continually reinforcing the students who are behaving correctly positively, clearly communicate consequences for distasteful behavior, and have adequate follow through (“Types of Classroom Management: Assertive Discipline,” n.d.). The main concept of this theory is that no teacher should have to interrupt teaching and no student should have to disrupt learning for the main task of maintaining order in the classroom.
Although the Canters’ originally developed the assertive discipline theory nearly five decades ago, their management tactics are still found in our nation’s educational system. Just the other day, my third grade nephew was talking about being moved up to the “peak” of his teacher’s mountain. Every student in his classroom starts out at the bottom of the mountain. Each peer has the chance to move up – or down. If a student exhibits good behavior throughout the day, they get to move up into the green mountainside, and eventually, blue peak of the mountain. However, if a student is choosing to act poorly, they are moved down toward the valley, orange, and then into the bottom of the valley, which is red. Once the student reaches the red, they are sent to the principal. Another method that I have witnessed in elementary classrooms is the stoplight. This consists of a traditional stoplight posted at the front of the room, with all students starting in the green. Each student’s name is either printed and laminated, or I have seen it with names written on clothes pins, and they move up into the yellow and red as they display poor or disruptive behavior. I believe these are both well researched classroom management styles, however, I would lean more towards the visual of the mountain because it gives students the chance to move up and down based on behavior. Throughout early reading in the 12 Touchstones of Good Teaching, the three imperatives of great teaching are to be demanding, be supportive and be intentional. Assertive discipline really drives the first and last imperatives, however, a lot of interpretation can be made of the second to be supportive. What does that mean, are we supportive of all children by holding them accountable for their behaviors in the classroom and accountable for their learning and the rights of others to learn and teachers to teach or are we being non supportive by humiliating them and causing psychological damage that can take years to reverse? What is the fine line from being a sentimentalist to a sophisticate to a traditionalist in our attainment to be a teacher classified as a warm demander?
References:
Cherry, K. (2019, August 12). What Are Piaget's Four Stages of Development? Retrieved March 17, 2020, from https://www.verywellmind.com/piagets-stages-of-cognitive- development-2795457
Figure 1. Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development. (n.d.). photograph. Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/137908.The_Psychology_of_the_Child
Figure 2. Assertive Discipline Cartoon. (n.d.). photograph. Retrieved from https://squinon2.wixsite.com/stephaniechu/single-post/2015/10/15/Assertive- Discipline-vs-Cooperative-Discipline
Gallop, D., LaChac, E., & Menasha, L. (n.d.). Lee Canter - Assertive Discipline. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from https://leecanter.weebly.com/
Hill, D. (2019, February 19). Order In The Classroom. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/1990/04/01/7discipl.h01.html
Mcleod, S. (2018, June 6). Jean Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
Nicola, N. (2019, March 25). Piaget's Influence on Educational Practices. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from https://mindsofwonder.com/2016/11/24/piagets-influence-educational- practices/
Types of Classroom Management: Assertive Discipline. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2020, from https://www.universalclass.com/articles/self-help/types-of-classroom- management-assertive-discipline.htm
Comments