But ultimately the learning has to come from somewhere which is what Piaget is trying to explain; that we construct our knowledge based on our existing interpretations of our environment. The age of the child is irrelevant. The point here is that children move through stages which, Piaget tells us, are generally sequential.
[@7:55]:"If knowledge is not pre-formed in the object or in us then there is sequential construction. The development of intelligence is a sequence of constructions. This prolongs biological development. The sequential constructions consist of hierarchical steps.... [@10:30] At the same age, children from the same environment always give more or less the same answers [to the same novel problems].... [Additionally,] the differences from one age to the next always follow the same order of succession. The stages are sequential. You have to go through one to get to the next. [The rate of knowledge acquisition may differ between children, particularly between environments, but the sequence of knowledge acquisition is always the same.]" Given Piaget's denunciation of nativism in part one and what he said above, is it safe to say that constructivism contains no elements of nativism whatsoever? Asked another way, would he have rejected suggestions that children might exhibit sequential knowledge acquisition because every human child goes through the same innate regimen of cognitive development? Or was constructivism more of an integration of nativism and socialization (is that what he meant by "empiricist" in part 1?)? Or was there a different contemporary context to this problem that I'm not seeing today?
Not necessarily. It can also mean he thought children have to go through the same phases that always follow the same order because they build on one another, and that they take approximately the same amount of time before going to the next phase, meaning that they are approximately the same age when they're in the same phase. Then genes wouldn't have any meaning in the subject. Also, there are a lot of differences between age groups and the phases, but there is a general age for each phase.
I don't think he is generalising age groups - in fact, he says so, round about 12:30, when he talks about illiterate mountain kids reaching a stage three years later than kids from a different culture.
Agreed, in the first of the videos, I felt as though some of the questions asked of the children were unclear. I know damn well that I could draw a triangle in reference to another drawing at that age. I don't agree with a lot of Piaget's findings. I don't believe generalizations of age groups can be made so easily.
In the fact that he is generalizing age groups it would seem as though he had nativist views. Believing that all children in each age group are going to have the same capabilities, is basically saying that these capabilities become innate with age...so the fact that he claims to be completely against nativist claims is ridiculous.
This is a flawed system. Firstly, as I mentioned before, this kid doesn't seem so bright. Secondly, get a kid from a background where a greater degree of learning is encouraged in the home and see the results. I think this theory has holes all through it.
But ultimately the learning has to come from somewhere which is what Piaget is trying to explain; that we construct our knowledge based on our existing interpretations of our environment. The age of the child is irrelevant. The point here is that children move through stages which, Piaget tells us, are generally sequential.
[@7:55]:"If knowledge is not pre-formed in the object or in us then there is sequential construction. The development of intelligence is a sequence of constructions. This prolongs biological development. The sequential constructions consist of hierarchical steps.... [@10:30] At the same age, children from the same environment always give more or less the same answers [to the same novel problems].... [Additionally,] the differences from one age to the next always follow the same order of succession. The stages are sequential. You have to go through one to get to the next. [The rate of knowledge acquisition may differ between children, particularly between environments, but the sequence of knowledge acquisition is always the same.]"
Given Piaget's denunciation of nativism in part one and what he said above, is it safe to say that constructivism contains no elements of nativism whatsoever? Asked another way, would he have rejected suggestions that children might exhibit sequential knowledge acquisition because every human child goes through the same innate regimen of cognitive development? Or was constructivism more of an integration of nativism and socialization (is that what he meant by "empiricist" in part 1?)? Or was there a different contemporary context to this problem that I'm not seeing today?
is really useful, it let you know different of kids and their skills
😊
Not necessarily. It can also mean he thought children have to go through the same phases that always follow the same order because they build on one another, and that they take approximately the same amount of time before going to the next phase, meaning that they are approximately the same age when they're in the same phase. Then genes wouldn't have any meaning in the subject. Also, there are a lot of differences between age groups and the phases, but there is a general age for each phase.
That aside, of course the development of the brain also play a huge part.
Great videos thank you.
I don't think he is generalising age groups - in fact, he says so, round about 12:30, when he talks about illiterate mountain kids reaching a stage three years later than kids from a different culture.
"If I have seen farther ,it is by standing on the shoulder of giants"-Isaac Newton
This guy has huge academical "fame", inside of the profession of psychology - Don't worry :)
What's that supposed to mean because i don't understand what you mean by fame
Agreed, in the first of the videos, I felt as though some of the questions asked of the children were unclear. I know damn well that I could draw a triangle in reference to another drawing at that age. I don't agree with a lot of Piaget's findings. I don't believe generalizations of age groups can be made so easily.
In the fact that he is generalizing age groups it would seem as though he had nativist views. Believing that all children in each age group are going to have the same capabilities, is basically saying that these capabilities become innate with age...so the fact that he claims to be completely against nativist claims is ridiculous.
This is a flawed system. Firstly, as I mentioned before, this kid doesn't seem so bright. Secondly, get a kid from a background where a greater degree of learning is encouraged in the home and see the results. I think this theory has holes all through it.