D. Felici­Skal/Piaget 1

Dominica R. Felici­Skal

Chapter 2 Reflection: Jean Piaget

1/27/2016

SPED 6210: Learning Theory & Applications

Dr. McNeal

D. Felici­Skal/Piaget 2

Before reading this chapter, I did bring the prior knowledge from our previous class: “How does

theory relate to practice and vice versa how does practice relate to theory?” I had difficulty with the

words: theory versus practice because these terms had not never been explicitly taught. Thus, I

concluded many people wrongly utilize these terms interchangeably. Although I learned that what had

been explained to me as Maria Montessori’s Theory of a hands/minds­on, student led environment was

really her method, I began thinking even if Montessori had a theory of her own? Is self­discovery a

theory or practice? Would it be a theory or practice if stated Montessori believed in Cognitive

Constructivism through self discovery in a sensory, interactive and comfortable environment with the

objective for the learner to gain independence through free choice of materials at his/her own pace? Is it

possible that Montessori based her methods of practice on Piaget’s Cognitive Constructivism Theory? If

so, it could be debated that Montessori did not apply a theory of her own yet instead developed a host of

multi­sensory, hands/minds­on instructional methods or practices based upon Piaget’s theories.

‘Although both Piaget and Montessori agreed that the theory of Cognitive Constructivism placed an

emphasis on the environment of the child, as well as the experiences of the child in the environment, their

assessment of each child’s learning process differed’ (Gonzalez­DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P., p. 47).

Montessori believed that the environment manipulated the child while Piaget thought the opposite.

‘Piaget believed that the every child is active participant, who acts upon the environment through four

distinct developmental stages: (1) sensorimotor, (2) preoperational, (3) concrete operational (4) formal

operational’ (Gonzalez­DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P., p. 23). As I pondered about the application of

Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development, I began to wonder about assessment. I have always been a

thinker who likes to know what the bottom line before beginning my learning journey.

‘As I read one of the criticisms of Piaget’s Theory, Arnett and Kaplan concluded that Piaget may

have underestimated and overestimated developmental stages, I disagreed with that criticism from the

stance that the developmental stages were based on estimated age ranges and were not meant to be

D. Felici­Skal/Piaget 3

interpreted as benchmark scores’ (Gonzalez­DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P., p. 45). Likewise, if

Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development were examined with the absence of age ranges, would the

identified learning characteristics defined at each stage be more emphasized? In other words, would all

children either with or without special needs receive an increased amount of developmentally appropriate,

differentiated instruction?

Nevertheless, I questioned: “If the age ranges were not meant to be interpreted like benchmark

scores, what determines a learner’s progression through each stage?”. As I evaluated the sensorimotor

stage, I concluded that the measuring stick for this stage was object permanence. Until children at this

stage can achieve a sense of object permanence through trial and error, the figure of speech “out of sight,

out of mind” is reality. As I began to judge the preoperational stage, the learner will begin to learn how to

perform mental operations through the measurement of the learner’s ability to utilize language to describe

images and/or words about certain objects, to sort common similarities and/or differences of certain

objects, to dramatize pretend play time through the development of symbolic thought, as well as, the

application of social speech. Interestingly, the ability to read and write is connected to the development

of symbolic thoughts because individual symbols, as well as, a pattern of symbols represent sounds in our

English language. Thus this is an example when teaching the alphabet and phonics would become

developmentally appropriate; not a certain age but a particular level of thought. The concrete operational

stage involves the assessment of ability to apply mental operations and logical thinking through the

learner’s ability to manipulate objects. In short, the learner must be able to utilize classification, seriation,

transitivity, reversibility and conservation through the utilization of manipulatives. Lastly, the final stage

is entitled, formal operational stage which is a stage that assesses one’s ability to apply abstract concepts

through manipulation and problem solving through logic. An example of this stage applied in the

classroom typically occurs during scientific experimentation when learners are ready to manipulate one

variable at a time to draw logical conclusions. Therefore, it is my belief that the assessments of each

D. Felici­Skal/Piaget 4

stage can guide the educator with his/her own instructional methods, selection of curriculum, choice of

manipulatives and most importantly prescribed, developmentally appropriate differentiated instruction.

To conclude, Maria Montessori may have believed that Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive

Constructivism was seminal to her methods because Piaget’s theories clearly influenced her work.

Although both Piaget’s theories and Montessori’s methods may have many criticisms, the time that either

were developed is phenomenal as both are applied to today’s 21st Century Learner. Research dated more

than five years and cited is considered classic because it is still relevant to today’s future adults.

Assessment has the potential to not only guide but prescribe, differentiated instruction so that all students

are given the opportunity to be successful learners and future adults.

References

D. Felici­Skal/Piaget 5

Gonzalez­DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2013). Theories in Educational Psychology: Concise

Guide to Meaning and Practice. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.