EDU236X Beyond Bits and Atoms
Reflection Paper 06 :
“Piaget is dead … no, that was just Stage Three : DEATH”
Stage One : Constructivism 101
There is no doubt that Piaget’s research and findings revolutionized the world of education. His work with children provided a framework with which the world began to understand children and how they think and grow. Educators who were so used to thinking of children as conduits into whom ‘adults’ poured knowledge and information were made to re-think their theories and conceptual frameworks. Children are not just “empty vessels” waiting to be filled. Children have their own points of view of the world which are both robust and valid – these cognitive states cannot be ignored. Piaget’s profound insights into the various distinct developmental stages and how children’s thinking grew over time were themselves a source of cognitive dissonance which led to further breakthroughs in education.
Stage Two : Debates, Discussions & Discourse
As with most great fields of work, Piaget’s thesis on developmental stages invited much debate, discussion and discourse. Many were uncomfortable with his almost rigid definitions of developmental stages, and his insistence that children were fixed in their cognitive states until they moved to the (his) next developmental stage. While agreeing with his mapping of developmental stages, there were debates on whether a more plastic view of development should be afforded. I still remember reading with great amusement the pointed exchanges between Piaget and Vygotsky on these issues, with Vygotsky insisting on a definite role for cultural artifacts and social elements in drawing out learning in the child. In Ackerman’s words, “while capturing what is common in children's thinking at different developmental stages—and describing how this commonality evolves over time— Piaget’s theory tends to overlook the role of context, uses, and media, as well as the importance of individual preferences or styles, in human learning and development.”
Stage Three : Death
It seemed that Piaget’s developmental stages should inevitably give way to “trendier” theories that emerged. With the advent of “newer” learning theories like “Situated Learning” (Lave and Wenger), “Distributed Cognition” (Hutchins) “Discovery Learning” (Bruner) and of course Vygotsky’s insistence on “Social Constructivism”, Piaget’s thesis seemed to fade into this next “developmental stage” – death. The education world became consumed with the idea of forming communities of learning and communities of practice, of legitimate peripheral participation, of scaffolding, of transfer, of the notion that learning can only occur when situated in a social context. All these seemed to overshadow Piaget and his revolutionary claims. Or so it seemed. But closer examination on each of these reveals that Piaget’s findings and thoughts form the foundation on which these were built. Piaget may be dead, but he is definitely buried in the foundation.
Stage Four : Constructivism 2.0
Constructionism has brought constructivism back to the forefront, and has perhaps given it a new spin. I thoroughly enjoyed Ackerman’s paper, in which he placed Papert and Piaget side by side. With constructionism, Paper seemed to have taken Piaget’s thoughts about child development, added the social dimensions, situating cognitive development in authentic environmental contexts, and introduced technology as external artifacts with which children can actualize their learning. This is Constructivism 2.0, I say.
There is no doubt that Piaget’s research and findings revolutionized the world of education. His work with children provided a framework with which the world began to understand children and how they think and grow. Educators who were so used to thinking of children as conduits into whom ‘adults’ poured knowledge and information were made to re-think their theories and conceptual frameworks. Children are not just “empty vessels” waiting to be filled. Children have their own points of view of the world which are both robust and valid – these cognitive states cannot be ignored. Piaget’s profound insights into the various distinct developmental stages and how children’s thinking grew over time were themselves a source of cognitive dissonance which led to further breakthroughs in education.
Stage Two : Debates, Discussions & Discourse
As with most great fields of work, Piaget’s thesis on developmental stages invited much debate, discussion and discourse. Many were uncomfortable with his almost rigid definitions of developmental stages, and his insistence that children were fixed in their cognitive states until they moved to the (his) next developmental stage. While agreeing with his mapping of developmental stages, there were debates on whether a more plastic view of development should be afforded. I still remember reading with great amusement the pointed exchanges between Piaget and Vygotsky on these issues, with Vygotsky insisting on a definite role for cultural artifacts and social elements in drawing out learning in the child. In Ackerman’s words, “while capturing what is common in children's thinking at different developmental stages—and describing how this commonality evolves over time— Piaget’s theory tends to overlook the role of context, uses, and media, as well as the importance of individual preferences or styles, in human learning and development.”
Stage Three : Death
It seemed that Piaget’s developmental stages should inevitably give way to “trendier” theories that emerged. With the advent of “newer” learning theories like “Situated Learning” (Lave and Wenger), “Distributed Cognition” (Hutchins) “Discovery Learning” (Bruner) and of course Vygotsky’s insistence on “Social Constructivism”, Piaget’s thesis seemed to fade into this next “developmental stage” – death. The education world became consumed with the idea of forming communities of learning and communities of practice, of legitimate peripheral participation, of scaffolding, of transfer, of the notion that learning can only occur when situated in a social context. All these seemed to overshadow Piaget and his revolutionary claims. Or so it seemed. But closer examination on each of these reveals that Piaget’s findings and thoughts form the foundation on which these were built. Piaget may be dead, but he is definitely buried in the foundation.
Stage Four : Constructivism 2.0
Constructionism has brought constructivism back to the forefront, and has perhaps given it a new spin. I thoroughly enjoyed Ackerman’s paper, in which he placed Papert and Piaget side by side. With constructionism, Paper seemed to have taken Piaget’s thoughts about child development, added the social dimensions, situating cognitive development in authentic environmental contexts, and introduced technology as external artifacts with which children can actualize their learning. This is Constructivism 2.0, I say.