Criticisms of Piaget’s Theory

Criticisms of Piaget’s Theory

While Piaget’s theory of cognitive development offered a comprehensive accounting of children’s cognitive skills at various ages and explained how those skills develop, some aspects of this theory and its research have limitations. First, recall that Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is a stage theory. This means that children learn specific cognitive skills at different ages that map directly or indirectly to their brain maturation, such as the ability to focus on more than one aspect of a problem and a maturing frontal cortex. It turns out, however, that development doesn’t occur in a stepwise fashion implied by the term “stage theory.” The stage model also assumes that all individuals reach the same level of cognitive development at the same time (e.g., preschool children should perform at the preoperational level in all cognitive tasks), which we know isn’t true. Instead, research has shown diversity in children’s thinking across cognitive tasks. For example, a child may use concrete operational thinking when completing some conservation tasks and preoperational thinking on others. Cognitive abilities and mature thinking can occur in a continuous fashion, given proper guidance and scaffolding from others (e.g., formal schooling, peer interactions, adult caregivers). Moreover, Piaget’s focus on the role of nature and the brain’s physical maturation led to an underestimation of the significant roles that culture, social interaction, and experience play in cognitive development (Franzoi, 2011; Lourenço, 2016). This connects with Lev Vygotsky’s research, suggesting that children’s cognitive development occurs within a sociocultural environment and that cultural tools like language and counting systems have a significant influence on cognitive growth (Bernstein et al., 2008).

Second, Piaget’s research relied on an interview style that often heavily used children’s verbal descriptions of their thought processes (Ginsburg & Opper, 1988; Müller et al., 2009). This may work well for children who have a well-developed vocabulary and insight into their own thinking, but a child who lacks these skills may not be able to explain their actual understanding, and the Piagetian approach may mistakenly claim the child doesn’t understand the concept in question. The research technique was also prone to focus on what children of various ages were incapable of doing or simply got wrong. Later researchers have criticized the tendency to equate task performance with competency in Piaget’s initial studies (Lourenço, 2016), therefore underestimating children’s capabilities. Researchers have found that young children can succeed on simpler forms of tasks requiring the same skills. For instance, children can successfully complete a centration task when fewer items are used (e.g., 3 buttons instead of 10).

A final criticism of Piaget’s foundational research into children’s cognitive development is the view of formal operations and scientific thinking as a complete and fully attained state, the end-state for human cognitive development, which reflects the bias of historically WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) research in the discipline of lifespan development. Some societies and cultures have different perspectives on the ultimate goals of cognition, including a focus on artistic expression, wisdom represented in folklore, or practical success in everyday life (Lourenço, 2016; Martin et al., 2010). In some cultures (even within the U.S.), educational institutions don’t emphasize critical thinking, which is needed to reach Piaget’s formal operational stage. As a result, this level of thinking skills is less prominent (Bernstein et al., 2008).