Talk:Theory of cognitive development
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. |
| Portal | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Initial comments
This article contains text that used to be in sensorimotor stage. violet/riga (t) 18:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've gone through this page and Theory of cognitive development and this page contains all the information that the other one does. This page is more detailed so this content should be kept, but I think that it should be moved to the other title. I'll request the page move. Matt 23:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Fixed and merged the histories. violet/riga (t) 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious
The section on 'Classification' appears to be prematurely placed in Pre-operational. Classification isn't fully formed (i.e. hierarchical classification) until Concrete operationally aged kids. I went ahead and moved it to the Concrete stage. Briholt 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms
This article is titled misleadingly and should be called "Piaget's theory of cognitive development". There are several others that are just as interesting and valid (for example: Luria did some excellent work on describing ontogenetic development)
Why is there nothing on the current state of Piaget's theories in modern developmental science? I'm pretty sure most current infant researchers aren't Piagetians, or at least not strictly so. What are the criticisms or modern supporting evidence? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to (very briefly) address this in the new section I added, 'Challenges to Piagetian Stage Theory'. While only a start, it is at least that. I plan to add better referencing shortly! SlipperyN 21:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems to neglect Piaget's moral development theories throughout the stages such as the heteronomous during the preoperational and the autonomoous during the concrete operationalJoshNck 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Application/Influence of the Theory
Can someone add some more information as to how Piaget's Theory is "the most historically influential theory" as I don't see anything mentioned on the influence his theory had on education. Gaz 09:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Animism
Animism The child believes that inanimate objects have "lifelike" qualities and are capable of action. Example, a child plays with a doll and treats it like a real person. In a way this is like using their imagination.
I added this to the preoperational thinking. source: Santrock, W., John. (2006). Life-Span Development Tenth Edition. Mc-Graw Hill Custom Publishing. 235. (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 May 2007 J1j2j3
[edit] Periods vs. Stages
This is probably a bit moot, but in class and in my text book we discussed Piaget's "Periods" such as the 'Motor-sensory Period', 'Pre-operational Period', and 'Concrete Operational Period' and their distinct "Stages".
The Wiki article mentions the Periods as Stages, and Stages mentioned above as "Sub-Stages"... I'm not sure which terminology is correct, but in case the terminology is wrong it may cause a lot of confusion and headaches... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.85.242.32 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] In Preoperational stage
It says in Classification: "A child is no longer subject to the illogical limitations of animism (the belief that all objects are animals and therefore have feelings)" and then later it says in Animism: "The child believes that inanimate objects have "lifelike" qualities and are capable of action. Example, a child plays with a doll and treats it like a real person. In a way this is like using their imagination", so basically it says that it doesn't happen, and then it says it does. How stupid. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not stupid, it's just unclear--don't be so concrete ;) Animism is definitely apart of Pre-operational thought. I'm going to strike it. Briholt 00:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dreadful lead paragraph
Kiwi points out in Talk:Asperger syndrome #Examples I found that Theory of cognitive development has a "DREADFUL intro paragraph. Why not an explanation that it refers to the development of thinking skills or something". That's a good point. The intro to this article is a dreadful lead. As far as I can see, the lead is missing. I'm making the comment here in the hopes that someone can write one. Eubulides 05:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not a wikipedia editor...
...but just eyeballing this, it looks like a few things may need addressing, at least in the preoperational area.
Egocentrism has at least two usage errors.
"Animism" is awkwardly written; among other problems, use of "their" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun isn't respectable English. Also, the final statement in that section hardly seems to need to be there, from a "quality of article" perspective.
Finally, there's no mention of transductive thought.
Not meaning to cast any stones here; you all do a great job, and if I had more time/ability, I'd try to get on board myself.
For that matter, I'm not entirely sure if I'm paying proper attention to the talk page guidelines; but I have a session to teach in a few moments, and if I don't point it out now, I may not remember to later. Apologies, if so.
Lauerc@gmail.com
146.7.31.81 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
"Also at this phase, passive reactions, llllllcaused by classical or operant conditioning, can begin" ??? what is with the l's?? Someone need to read through this page and make sure it is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.135 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone dumb this article down. I dislike looking up every other word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.35.135 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assimilation and accommodation
The article needs an explanation of assimilation and accommodation, and perhaps of other global (non-stage-specific) concepts. The logical place would seem to be in a new section after the "General information regarding the stages" section. -DoctorW 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Terrible Title
This is a theory of cognitive development, not 'The' theory of cognitive development. It should be titled Piaget's "theory of cognitive development" or "developmental stage theory." I don't know how to change the title, but someone should do it fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyong2 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I came in here to comment on how this article reads like a grad student's homework - "According to Piaget" "Piaget notes that . . ." etc. Now I know why. This article could definately use a change of name; I'm a lay person and I came in to this thinking this ws IT, the ONE accepted 'theory of cognitive development'. I was expecting a theory in name only, like the theory of universal gravitation or something along those lines. 74.77.128.175 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Needs formatting help!
Call for help: Needs attention on the formatting. --1000Faces (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
