My Thoughts on Cognitive Development

Jean Piaget’s work related to cognitive development theory fully realized the general stages of cognitive development postulated by James Mark Baldwin. While, the divisions proposed by Piaget are generally sound. I find that the theory as advanced by the Piaget and pure Piagetians too simplistic because, the theory as advanced by them is illustrate is indicative of a smooth and fluid developmental pathway . Cognitive behavioral development is in truth a difficult, arduous, and lengthy process the pure Piagetians when developing the theory never anticipated or provided for the phenomenon of decalage which are unpredicted gaps in the developmental process and never provided any means or method of explaining the gaps.

Additionally, the theory as constructed initially by Piaget and his early disciples consisted of the four stages: Sensorimotor (years 0–2); Preoperational (years 2–7); Concrete operational (years 7–11); Formal operational (years 11–adulthood); with each stage possessing many half-stages. Piaget and the pure Piagetians used a broad and general set of domains when constructing the theory that did not take into account the possible existence of developmental stages beyond formal operational stage or of a stage that precedes the onset of the preoperational stage, subsequent research has demonstrated two things: One, that the majority of these half-stages are in fact full developmental stages. Two, research has provided sufficient evidence to support the existence of stages beyond the formal operational stage and prior to the beginning of the preoperational phase.

Lev Semenovich Vygotsky argued that the person possesses a zone of proximal development; Vygotsky defined the zone of proximal development as the gap between student’s actual developmental level as determined through the ability of the student to engage in problem solving and the potential developmental level when influenced by their interaction with peers and adults.

. . . The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined
through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more
capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)

The primary difference between Piaget and Vygotsky laid within their differing views and attitudes towards the exact nature and role of culture especially the idea of cultural mediation through the use of artifacts and symbols in the developmental process.

Having said that it cannot be denied that zone of proximal development exists, the main question that must be considered remains the degree to which cultural mediation affects and influences cognitive development.

I do not ascribe fully to either theorem, in my mind in order to be truly effective the Piagetian cognitive development theorem must be considered bearing the emendations of the Neo and Post Piagetians to the original theory in mind without these revisions the theory becomes useless. The most effective system in my mind would be one that uses Erikson’s model of psychosocial development, while taking into account Neo and Post Piagetian cognitive development theory, Vygotsky’s definition of the zone of proximal development, and Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.