Two Conceptions of Stage Structure and the Problem of Novelty in Development

  • Jan Boom
Conference paper
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)

Summary

Cognitive development can be construed in terms of conceptual or operational structures. The notion of‘operational structures’ is used to refer to Piaget’s dynamic form of structuralism and implies an autonomous, universal development through self-regulative processes. This position was criticized because the social aspects of development were underestimated. If development is construed in terms of ‘conceptual structures’, then ‘structure’ stands for coherence in the organization of meanings and development need not be autonomous nor self-regulative: the cultural environment has an important role to play. Although the second position thus seems promising, the worth of a conceptualization in terms of operational structures must be stressed because in this way the learning paradox can be avoided. This paradox states that it is impossible for a subject to formulate a hypothesis that does contain structures of the higher stage while being in the lower stage. Therefore, a relevant hypothesis about a new way of thinking cannot be tested and consequently never be ‘learned’. With the conceptualization of development in terms of ‘operational structures’ these objections can be neutralized because a new structure can, to a certain extent, be available for the subject in his or her actions.

Keywords

Coherence Univer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bickhard, M. H. (1988). Piaget on variation and selection models: Structuralism, logical necessity, and interaction. Human Development, 31, 274–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boom, J. (1989). Structures and reflection in individual and collective development. Paper presented at the ‘9th Tagung fur Entwicklungspsychologie’ in Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  3. Eckensberger, L. (1986). Handlung, Konflikt und Reflexion: Zur Dialektik von Struktur und Inhalt im Moralischen Urteil. In W. Edelstein & G. Nunner-Winkler (Eds.), Zur Bestimmung der Moral (pp. 409–442). Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  4. Elbers, E. (1988). Social context and the child’s construction of knowledge. Utrecht.Google Scholar
  5. Flanagan, O. J. (1984). The science of the mind. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  6. Haaften, A. W. van, Korthals, M., Widdershoven, G. A. M., Mul, J. de, & Snik, G. L. M. (1986). Ontwikkelingsfilosofie. (Developmental philosophy). Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
  7. Haaften, A. W. van (in press). The justification of conceptual development claims. Journal of Philosophy of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Hamlyn, D. W. (1978). Experience and the growth of understanding. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays in moral development. Vol. II: The psychology of moral development. The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, M. (1986). Kollektive Lernprozesse. Studien zur Grundlegung einer soziologischen Lerntheorie. Frankfurt a/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  11. Peters, R. S. (1974). Psychology and ethical development. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. Piaget, J. (1977). Recherches sur l’abstraction réfléchissante. Vol. 2: L’abstraction de l’ordre des relations spatiales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  14. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1980). Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Boom

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations