Buy an essay: Psychological processes and activities related to thinking and knowing.

In order to provide optimal structure and process of learning, it is necessary to analyze psychological processes and activities related to thinking and knowing. For effective teaching one needs to know how people think, learn, perceive and remember. These activities are studied by cognitive psychology, the core focus of which is how human beings acquire, process and store information (Oakley, 2004). There are several dominant theories in cognitive psychology, which have a large number of practical applications. There are various categories of people and spheres of activity where cognitive psychology can be efficiently applied. Evidently, it will be useful for students (especially for biology and psychology students), for teachers, educators and professionals responsible for developing curricula. Moreover, understanding cognitive processes can be useful to engineers, designers, architects etc.
One of the most influential and important theories is four-stage cognitive development theory created by Jean Piaget. According to this theory, people pass these stages at different rates, but in an invariant sequence (Oakley, 2004). Each stage can be characterized by new cognitive schemes, and higher stages imply development of more complicated schemes.
The aim of this research is to testify Piaget’s concepts in practice by selecting two individuals most probably being at different stages of cognitive development, and asking them to classify a variety of items (buttons, in this case) in two ways. The results of the research may be used for understanding perception of information in different ages and can be applied to enhance learning and instruction.
Method
For the research, two male participants were selected. The first one was 4 year old boy, who attends pre-kindergarten. Let us call him John, for security purposes. The second one was 29-year old male, working as computer programmer. Let us call him Jack, for anonymity purposes.
The task was to categorize 42 buttons (there were similar buttons among them) in two different ways: first the participant was asked to place these buttons in certain groups; after first classification, the participant was questioned why he or she selected such classification, and then the participant was asked whether it is possible to think of other classification, and what factors will be used second time for dividing the buttons.
The procedure took place in a separate room, in quiet and friendly environment. The whole process took place on the table. The observer was sitting on a chair in the other corner of the room, and asked only several neutral questions. Phrases and thoughts of the participants during the experiment were noted separately.
John’s parents were also present during the procedure but they neither helped him nor talked to him. Thus, the research procedure was clean concerning external interference. John was quite interested in the experiment. For John, the task was explained in the following way: “I have brought you many pretty buttons. You may group them as you like. Please divide the buttons on this table now. You can think as long as you need”. After John made the first sorting, he was asked “Why did you group the buttons like this? What is the difference?”. Then, the buttons were gathered together, and John was asked: “Can you think how to group these buttons in other way? What will be the difference between the new groups?”. All the procedure took about 15 minutes.
Jack also was eager to do the experiment. In Jack’s case the procedure took about 10 minutes. For Jack, the task was the following: “Please divide these buttons into groups. There can be as many groups as you like. You can make the division in any manner that seems most appropriate for you”. After the division was over, Jack was asked: “How did you sort these buttons, what were the main features that you used for sorting?”. Then, after gathering the buttons together, Jack was asked: “Please think of another division of these buttons, different from the previous one. If you can suggest another grouping, on what features will it be based?”
Results
The results of the experiment were the following. John during the first iteration of classifying the buttons grouped them according to his vision of these buttons as of two armies (e.g. the larger buttons were generals, the black ones were spies, medium-sized buttons were soldiers etc). When he was asked to suggest another classification, John suggested to classify the buttons according to their color: light buttons, multicolored buttons being more light than dark, multicolored being more dark than light, and dark buttons.
Jack suggested to classify the buttons according to possible sets of buttons: there were 8 groups of similar or likely buttons and the last group where unique buttons were placed. Another classification suggested by Jack was according to the extent how these buttons might suit his wardrobe: the ones that will suit best, the ones that might suit in case there’s nothing appropriate, and the buttons which would not suit his clothes at all.
Table 1 contains the number of groups suggested by each of the participants during the first and second grouping, and the main feature used for classification.
John Jack
1 time 2 time 1 time 2 time
Number of groups 5 4 9 3
Characteristic Position in the “army” Color Belonging to one set Appropriateness for wardrobe
Table 1. Number of groups and characteristic features selected by 2 respondents
Discussion
First of all it is reasonable to suggest which stages of development would be appropriate to both respondents, and what cognitive characteristics could be peculiar to them. For this, it is necessary to mention key characteristics of each stage of development.
The first stage is called sensorimotor, and lasts since birth to 1.5-2 years of age (Sutherland, 1992). Knowledge in this stage is determined by physical experiences and interaction. Next stage is called preoperational, and lasts from toddlerhood to early childhood (up to 7 years approximately). At this stage, imagination and memory are also involved into learning. Children do not use cause and effect relationships, but can determine relationships between past and future. Egocentric characteristics are common to this stage. The next stage takes place between 7 and 11 years, and involves logic as well as systematic manipulation of symbols (Pressley & McCormick, 2007). Finally, the last stage is called formal operational stage, which is commonly suggested to start since 12 years old. Piaget stated that no more structures were needed when operational stage was reached. This stage takes place when the individual can think about multiple variables, formulate hypotheses and can manipulate abstract concepts (Sutherland, 1992).
It is supposed that John’s stage of cognitive development is preoperational. In this stage, children are supposed to use symbolic schemes; thus, John could use gestures, language and mental images for cognitive purposes. The state of symbolic play is also appropriate at this stage; also, children at preoperational period have their own logic which can be different from “classical” logic of the surrounding environment.
Jack’s stage of development should be identified as formal operational stage, which implies using abstractions for analyzing the problem, using multiple factors when considering a particular situation. Thinking at this stage of development might not be bounded or linked to the surrounding world, and the ability for generalizations is maximal.
The results of the experiment to a large extent corresponded with initial hypothesis, and allowed to testify Piaget’s concepts. John’s responses and classification clearly coincide with the supposed reactions. John used symbolic play first time when sorting the buttons, and he acted from quite appropriate to his preoperational stage egocentric position while regarding the “armies” of buttons. During the second classification, John used color as distinct feature, which also indicates his visual perception of the world, as well as the lack of tendency to generalize at this stage. In general, John acted absolutely according to Piaget’s description of preoperational stage.
Concerning Jack’s responses, it is possible to clearly identify them as more abstract and complicated than John’s responses. However, these responses could be done both at concrete operation stage (11-17 years old, usually) and at formal operational stage. Moreover, Jack’s second classification of buttons as suitable to his own wardrobe show the egocentrism which was quite unexpected at this development stage. However, the first classification into similar sets was certainly abstract enough and functional, so it can be considered as clear indication of cognitive processes of higher stages. In general, Jack’s responses could be classified as concrete or formal operational stage. It can be explained by 2 factors. First of all, it is likely that Jack did not perceive this task as quite responsible and important, and was “playing” to a certain extent. Secondly, the task itself is more suitable to distinguish between three first stages of cognitive development, and does not leave much space for formal operational perception, as well as for abstract thinking.
Limitations of the study.
First of all, the study was limited by only 2 participants. Thus, sampling errors might be present, i.e. the selected participants might not represent their contemporaries in a research study. Moreover, to overcome the narrowness of the study, it would be useful to involve more than 30 participants (in order to be able to apply the law of averages) for each stage. Since the stages covered by this research correspond to Piaget periods from 2 to 7 years old and 12+ years old, it would be optimal to have more than 30 respondents between 2 and 7 years old and more than 30 respondents older than 12 years old, with maximal possible age diversity.
Secondly, the participants are comparatively from the same geographic area. For the greater validity of the study, it would be reasonable to select participants from different geographic areas. In general, it can be useful to study cognitive development within a given state, or country. Also, both of the participants are male, and this could also influence the results of the experiment in a certain way. For the purity of the research, it is necessary to include 50% of females in this research.
Finally, for testing individuals with suggested formal operation stage of cognitive development, tasks giving more space for abstract thinking, generalization and multifactor analysis have to be introduced.
However, since the results of the research coincide with theoretical suggestions made using Piaget theory, the outcomes of the research may be used for deeper understanding of cognitive development as well as applied to the areas of teaching and learning.
Implications
Piaget and his followers believed that knowledge was constructed by learners and learning occurred when learners created products (Pressley & McCormick, 2007). Understanding of different stages of cognitive development and the differences between them has a significant impact on teaching and learning. Knowing the differences of generalization and perception in different age group, the instructor can build the lessons in a most efficient way, select optimal learning materials and visual aid for learners. Knowing the mechanisms of information analysis in different age groups, it is also possible to involve logical thinking into learning rather than simply present facts and rules. Choosing best approach to teaching will also help to increase students; motivation since using too difficult or, on the contrary, too easy approach to exposition of learning material would demotivate the learners and hinder learning progress.
Also, it is necessary to realize that though stages of cognitive development are associated with maturity, favorable learning environment is needed. Thus, to apply Piaget’s concepts successfully, a teacher should first of all analyze at what stage are his students now, and select optimal learning materials as well as exposition so that they would be able to move to the next stage timely.
References
Oakley, Lisa. (2004). Cognitive development. Routledge.
Pressley, Michael & McCormick, Christine. (2007). Child and adolescent development for educator. Guilford Press.
Sutherland, Peter. (1992). Cognitive development today: Piaget and his critics. SAGE.