SUMMARY of Piaget’s theory

Piaget’s theory posits invariant stages in how children acquire knowledge about the world
(genetic epistemology). In the first 2 years of life, children construct sensorimotor schemes
based on physical action upon the world. The schemes become more intentional and more
inter-coordinated during that time. During the preoperational period, approximately age 2 to 7,
children exploit their newly acquired symbolic ability. Despite the limitations of egocentrism,
rigid thought, and limited role-taking and communication abilities, children combine symbols
into semilogical reasoning. During the concrete operational period, roughly age 7 to 11,
children acquire logicomathematical structures. Now thought is operational and consequently
more flexible and abstract. Actions are still the main source of knowledge, but the actions now
are mental. Finally, during the formal operational period, age 11 to 15, these operations are no
longer limited to concrete objects. Operations can be performed on operations, verbal
propositions, and hypothetical conditions.

These stagelike changes involve changes in the structure of thought. Thought becomes
increasingly organized, always building on the struc- ture of the previous stage. Evidence for
these structural changes comes from observations of infants and from interviews or problem-
solving tasks with older children.

Movement through the stages is caused by four factors: physical mat- uration, experience with
physical objects, social experience, and equili- bration. Experience brings cognitive progress
through assimilation and accommodation. These functional invariants help children adapt to
the environment by strengthening and stretching their current understand- ing of the world.

Piaget viewed children as active and self-regulating organisms who change by means of
interacting innate and environmental factors. He emphasized qualitative change, but he
identified certain quantitative changes as well. The essence of cognitive development is
structural change. Piaget drew on the equilibration model and the logicomathe- matical model
to describe these changes. His theory has contributed many educational concepts, for example,
“readiness to learn” and the “ac- tive learner.”

The theory’s main strengths are its recognition of the central role of cognition in development,
discovery of surprising features of young chil- dren’s thinking, wide scope, and ecological
validity.The main weaknesses include its inadequate support for the stage notion, inadequate
account of mechanisms of development, need for a theory of performance, slighting of social
and emotional aspects of development, underestima- tion of abilities, and methodological and
stylistic barriers. Some of these problems have been addressed by the neo-Piagetians,
particularly Case and Fischer, who include the roles of capacity and cultural support in ex-
planations of the variability and consistency of children’s thinking. In ad- dition, Piaget
himself continued to modify his theory in his later years, particularly with respect to the nature
of logic and the mechanisms of development.

Today, researchers continue to examine the key issues of cognitive de- velopment identified
by Piaget and by those who challenged and ex- panded his theory. Particularly active areas
include infants’ advanced competencies, domain-specific concepts, mechanisms of
development, and developmental cognitive neuroscience.

What should be our final judgment on Piaget’s theory? This flawed but amazingly productive
theory gives us a framework for viewing the rich- ness and complexity of cognitive
development. Even when it has failed, for example, where an adequate explanation for
conservation cannot be found despite hundreds of studies, the theory has led to interesting dis-
coveries about development, such as rudimentary numerical skills that may lead to
conservation. Furthermore, the theory has raised issues that all theories of development must
address. All new theories for years to come will inevitably be compared to Piaget’s theory. In
short, we have not made a mistake by paying attention to this “giant in the nursery” (Elkind,
1968.