Ch. 2 Blurg

Andrew Hogan

11/12/14

Ch. 2 Blog

This chapter of our textbook “Educational Psychology: Developing Learners” discussed the way in which children developed both cognitively and linguistically. One of the key concepts from this chapter that caught my attention was Piaget’s theory of cognitive development.

Piaget’s theory is the basis for what we have discussed as the constructivist theory, which I find to be the most comprehensive and applicable to a classroom, as I believe that if a child can experience the knowledge first hand, it is more lasting and easier to build upon than having it demonstrated by another person.

That being said, after reading the section, there is still one main principle from Piaget’s theory I question: the idea that as children engage in social interaction, they begin to understand the idea that “their own view of the world is not necessarily a completely accurate or logical one.” I argue this point because I have found that if a child is kept in an environment that is not constantly asking them to question what they think about the world, particularly in social settings that are under educated or overly affluent, by the time a child reaches their teen years they have become so locked into a mindset that they are incredibly reluctant to reevaluate their life decisions, and instead modify the information given to fit a current scheme as opposed to accommodating the scheme to fit the new information. An example of this would be a 11 year old inner city black student believes that education is not designed for him, and he will inevitably end up in jail. No matter what social interaction this student has, it will not change his belief.

Overall, I agree with Piaget’s theory, however it seems to me that in my experience, people

are very reluctant to change their world view and accommodate new information when faced 

with mental disequilibrium, as Piaget has stated. However, according to this theory, people 

continue the formal stage of learning through adulthood. At what point does disequilibrium fail 

to be a powerful factor in changing peoples thoughts? At what level does a person who is 

taking part in the formal stages of learning need to experience disequilibrium in order to 

change their world view?