• Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:




Piaget’s hypothesis of cognitive development is an exhaustive hypothesis about the nature and advancement of human knowledge. Piaget trusted that one’s youth plays an imperative and dynamic part in their adulthood advancement. Piaget’s thought is basically known as a formative stage hypothesis ( Baldwin, 2005). The hypothesis manages the way of learning itself and how people steadily come to procure, build, and utilize it. To Piaget, psychological improvement was a dynamic revamping of mental procedures coming about because of organic development and ecological experience (Piaget, Gruber & Voneche, 2001). He posited that youngsters develop a comprehension of their general surroundings, experience disparities between what they definitely know and what they find in their surroundings, then, and modify their thoughts as needs be (McLeod, 2012). Additionally, Piaget asserted that subjective advancement is at the focal point of the human life form, and dialect is dependent upon information and comprehension obtained through intellectual improvement. Piaget’s prior work got the best consideration. As a result, numerous guardians have been urged to give a rich, strong environment for their children’s regular inclination to develop and learn (Piaget, 1997; Piaget, 1996). The children’s or young students’ focused classrooms and «open instruction» are immediate utilizations of Piaget’s perspectives. Notwithstanding its enormous achievement, Piaget’s hypothesis has a few impediments that Piaget perceived himself: for instance, the hypothesis bolsters sharp stages instead of nonstop improvement (Kallio , 1995). The scenario described in this paper is a classic example of the demonstration of Piaget’s theory.

Review of Literature

Piaget and his associates led a few investigations to evaluate formal operational thought. In one of their analyses, Piaget assessed the intellectual capabilities of children of various ages using a scale and differing weights (Bruner,2006). The errand was to adjust the scale by snaring weights on the ends of the scale. To effectively finish the undertaking, the children had to utilize formal operational thought to understand that the separation of the weights from the middle and the heaviness of the weights both influenced the parity. A heavier weight must be put nearer to the focal point of the scale, and a lighter weight must be distanced from the inside, so that the two weights adjust to each other (Lourenço & Machado, 1994). While 3-to 5-year olds could not fathom the idea of balancing, kids by the age of 7 could adjust the scale by setting the same weights on both ends; however, they neglected to understand the significance of the location. By age 10, the same children could consider location yet neglected to utilize rationale and rather utilized experimentation. At last, by the age of 13 and 14, in their early adolescence, a few children comprehended the relationship amongst weight and distance and thus could effectively actualize their theory (Jordan & Brownleem 2004).

Piaget discovered that youngsters in the solid operational stage could consolidate inductive rationale. Then again, kids at this age experience issues utilizing deductive rationale, which includes utilizing a general standard to foresee the result of a particular occasion. This incorporates mental reversibility ( Baldwin, 2005). A case of this is having the capacity to invert the request of connections between mental classes. For instance, a youngster may have the capacity to perceive that his or her pet dog is a Labrador, that a Labrador is a pooch, and that a puppy is a creature, and reach determinations from the data accessible, and in addition apply every one of these procedures to speculative circumstances (Kail, 2007). The unique nature of a child’s idea at the formal operational level is clear in the pre-adult’s verbal critical thinking ability.The intelligent nature of an adult’s thinking is when such an adult takes care of issues in an experimentation style. Sometimes young students start to think more as a researcher considers, conceiving arrangements to take care of issues and methodicallly test feelings ( Baldwin, 2005). They utilize speculative deductive thinking, which implies that they create theories or best suppositions, and deliberately find, which is the best way to follow in taking care of the issue. Amid this stage, the child can comprehend love, coherent confirmations and qualities. Amid this stage the youngster starts to engage potential outcomes for the future and is captivated with what they can be ( Lautrey, 2002).

Children of the age bracket found in this stage are further changing psychologically especially through the manner in which they consider social matters (Commons & Pekker, 2008). Children egocentrism administers the way these youngsters consider social matters, and is the increased hesitance in them as they seem to be, which is reflected in their feeling of individual uniqueness and invulnerability (Bruner,2006). Children egocentrism can be dismembered into two sorts of social consideration, nonexistent group of people that includes enticing conduct, and individual development, which includes a child’s feeling of individual uniqueness and invulnerability. These two sorts of social speculation start to influence a child’s egocentrism in the solid stage. Be that as it may, it persists to the formal operational stage when they are then confronted with conceptual thought and completely sensible in terms of logical thinking (Demetriou, 2003).


In this provided case scenario, Ms. Jones teaches Year 4 at a primary school where she tries very had to ensure that her classroom is bright and cheerful and that the students have a variety of developmentally appropriate activities from which to choose (Dewey, 2007). Having divided the entire classroom into various sections for easier supervision and reach, the students are left with a fresh field of organizing their own stuff and Ms. Jones only comes to give them the direction on how to do some of the activities left at their disposal ( Baldwin, 2005). Ms. Jones is primarily training these students to practically handle learning and subject matter on their own without necessarily being helped; a factor that would promote their cognitive skills development and foster their understanding of learning (Kallio, 2011). Ms. Jones, in all her guidance and supervision to these children, it allowing them to learn how to coordinate with each other and integrate the skill of involvement. Each of them is being involved in learning, and at the end of the day, learning has taken place amongst each and every student. The students are taught by Ms. Jones how to explore the world of adventure in classroom learning by using the little things in the surrounding to cement the unforgettable learning experiences (Watson, 2004). Amazingly, by allowing the Piagetian theory to take course, she fundamentally realizes that every child is enjoying learning (Commons & Pekker, 2008).


Ms Jones has a noteworthy breakbreakthrough in the way she comprehends the children she teaches. Her thoughts have invigorated an enormous measure of further research which expanded her insight into children advancement. Vygotsky claims that kids experience unexpected changes in their capacity to take care of issues (Commons & Pekker, 2008). This is the consequence of being instructed socially particularly by others which then permit them to think at a more elevated amount. In Piaget’s hypothesis, what limits what kids can realize next is their level of subjective improvement and natural development (Vygotsky & Vygotsky, 1980). In Vygotsky’s hypothesis, improvement is constrained by the measure of the Zone of Proximal Development. The Zone of Proximal Development is the contrast between the genuine formative level (what the children are prepared to do now) and potential advancement level; the distinction between what the chilren can do now and what the they can do with grown-up direction or that of more fit associates (Cole, 2005).

No child is the same regardless of the possibility that they are raised the same way. Individuals discover that through the Nature V. Support contention, yet that is just but another story. There are main considerations that can disturb the Stage hypothesis or the Constructivist hypothesis (Commons & Pekker, 2008). An individual could have a brokenness or a unique need that should be managed. For instance, is a young person has a brain dysfunction that disturbs thier learning capacities, there is a high rate of chance that he not develop at a similar pace and rate as other children in his era and environment (Callaghan, 2005).

I think that Ms Jones’ students are likely to be functioning at stage four. This is because this stage is portrayed by the fitting utilization of logic. During this particular this stage, the behavior of children and thier thinking turn out to be more developed and «grown-up like». They begin taking care of issues in a more coherent manner. Theoretical, speculative intuition is not yet created in the chilren, and children can just take care of issues that apply to solid occasions or questions. At this stage, the children experience a move where the tyke learns principles, for example, preservation (Commons & Pekker, 2008). Piaget confirmed that children could fuse Inductive thinking, which includes drawing deductions from perceptions keeping in mind the end goal to make a speculation. Interestingly, these chilren battle with deductive thinking, which includes utilizing a summed up guideline as a part of request to attempt to anticipate the result of an occasion (Bruner,2006). Chilren in this stage usually encounter challenges with making sense of rationale in their heads. For instance, a child will comprehend that «A is more than B» and «B is more than C». Be that as it may, when asked «is A more than C?», the child will not have the capacity to intelligently make sense of the inquiry in his or her head.



Bruner, J. (2006). Studies in cognitive growth : A collaboration at the Center for Cognitive Studies. New York: Wiley & Sons.

 Baldwin, J. (2005). Jean Piaget. In Key thinkers in linguistics and the philosophy of language. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/edinburghthinkl/jean_piaget/0

Callaghan, T. C. (2005). Cognitive Development beyond Infancy. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Child Development (pp. 204-209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1311100053&v=2.1&u=cuny_hunter&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=c822fe0523f5b1258756f6e7855acc8d

Cole, M. (2005). Culture and cognitive development. In Encyclopedia of cognitive science. Retrieved fromhttp://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileycs/culture_and_cognitive_development/0

Commons, M. L., & Pekker, A. (2008). Presenting the formal theory of hierarchical complexity. World Futures: Journal of General Evolution, 65 (1-3), 375-382.

Demetriou, A. (2003). Mind, self, and personality: Dynamic interactions from late childhood to early adulthood. Journal of Adult development,10(3), 151-171. Retrieved fromhttp://www.adesignmedia.com/OnlineResearch/sp_Mind%20Self%20and%20Personality.pdf

Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

 Humphreys, L.G.; Rich, S.A.; Davey, T.C. (1985). «A Piagetian Test of General Intelligence». Developmental Psychology. 21: 872–877.

Jordan, V. B., & Brownlee, L. (2004, April). Meta-analysis of the relationship between Piagetian and school achievement tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Kail, Robert (2007). Children and Their Development (4 ed.). Pearson.

Kallio, E. (2011). Integrative thinking is the key: an evaluation of current research into the development of thinking in adults. Theory & Psychology, 21(6), 785 – 801.

Kallio, E. 1995. Systematic reasoning: Formal or postformal cognition? Journal of Adult Development, 2 (3), 187-192.

Kegan, Robert. (2012). The evolving self: problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

 Lautrey, J. (2002). Is there a general factor of cognitive development? In Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lourenço, O.; Machado, A. (1996). «In defense of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms». Psychological Review. 103 (1): 143–164.

McLeod,S.(2012). A. «Piaget |Cognitive Theory». Simply Psychology. Piaget, J. (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking.
In Knowledge and development (pp. 17-42). Springer US.

Piaget, J. (1996). Piaget’s theory. In Piaget and his school (pp. 11-23). Springer Berlin: Heidelberg.

Piaget, J., Gruber, H. (Ed.), & Voneche, J. J. (Ed.). (2001). The essential Piaget (100th Anniversary Ed.). New York: Jason Aronson.

Torres, J. and Ash, M. (2007). Cognitive development. In Encyclopedia of special education: A reference for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individuals. Retrieved from http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileyse/cognitive_development/0

Vygotsky, L., & Vygotsky, S. (1980). Mind in society : The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Watson, J. B. (2004). Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute Publishing Company.