[Phys-L] Re: Piaget

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

The Neo-Piaget approach which is exemplified by Lawson essentially changes
the names of the classifications, but still keeps a large number of Piaget's
ideas.

Now as to the stages being non reproducible, the Piagetian tests are
remarkably stable just as IQ tests are generally stable.  The Piagetian
scores rise gradually and Lawson showed that the Piagetian markers rise in a
manner consistent with them being "developmental".  Developmental according
to Piaget means they develop slowly over time, not that they are determined
by genetically programmed development.  Now the interpretation of the
various markers can certainly be reevaluated, but the Piagetian makers for
the levels are very important indicators of thinking ability.  So I would
support the level terminology to categorize in a general fashion the type of
thinking that students are using.

A number of his experiments were repeated by various other experimenters
such as Karplus...  One thing that must be realized is that Piaget never
prescribed methods of teaching, and indeed called that the "American
question".  But various researchers such as Shayer & Adey have had very good
success by applying Piagetian ideas of development.  Essentially they target
the markers and teach the Piagetian tasks using physical tasks that generate
a Piagetian conflict.  This approach appears to improve thinking skills, and
has a large delayed effect on standardized tests in other subjects.  BTW the
Piagetian idea of certain types of learning being developmental may be
mirrored in the work of Laws, Thornton, and Sokoloff.  They find that after
an activity designed to help students understand a concept that scores on
the evaluation test continue to rise up to two weeks later.

Just as physics built new models on the old ones, various researchers are
building on Piaget as a good starting point. Similarly one will see both
detractors and supporters.

One can observe in HS students the difference between purely concrete
operational thinkers and formal operational thinkers.  Transitional students
are a bit harder to quantify.  My observations plus the reasonably high
correlation between the Piagetian tests and physics gain are very
convincing.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

>         I'm introducing this topic because I learned at UIC, when I got a
> high school teaching certificate, that Piaget's work has never stood up to
> close scrutiny.  Textbooks in the '80's began referring to Neo-Piaget
> approaches.  Someone on this list once referred me to Edelstein's work
> which showed by way of counter-example, that Piaget stages (as determined
> by tests) were, at best, transient and, at worst, non reproducible.
>         This is not to say that I find Piaget totally incredible.  I've
> played sith small children and seen some support for the kind of thinking
> described by Piaget.  But the existence of some supporting evidence is not
> enough to make the case.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l