DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 087 518 PS 006 712

AUTHOR Kamii, Constance; DeVries, Rhel.aTITLE Piaget-Based Curricula for Early Childhood Education:

Three Different Approaches.PUB DATE 1 Apr 73NOTE 17p.; Part of a pre-symposium paper presented at the

biennial meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1,1973)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Comparative Analysis; Conservation (Concept);

*Curriculum Evaluation; *Early Childhood Education;Educational Objectives; *Learning Theories; *TeacherRole

IDENTIFIERS Piagetian Theory

ABSTRACTA Piagetian-based early childhood education program

is compared with the Lavatelli program and the Weikart Program.Interpretation and application of Piaget's theory are examined on anumber of levels: conceptualization of curriculum objectives, methodsof teaching, principles of teaching, and the role of the teacher.Lavatellils program is commended for interpretation of Piaget'stheory and Weikart's program for theory application. It is emphasizedthat a primary consideration in deriving curriculum goals fromPiaget's theory should be that short-term cognitive goals should heset in the context of long-term goals, i.e., formal operations.(CS)

A

U S DTPaoitYrofT DT PO Al INDucal wm A NI,LP AWL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OfEDUCATION

'`.'c Doc uN't Nr As eEEN rrppo

Piaget -Based Curricula for Early Childhood Education: ,,[

Three Different Approaches* No, NI 5.,AM WT M4TSUN, Of I or 'AL NA ?,0411i .Ncri 'LOT M

Constance Kamii and Rheta DeVriesUniversity of Illinois at Chicago Circle

INTRODUCTION

I. Need for Our Comparison and Contrast

Symposium is not a discussion of what is a good curriculumfor children, but a discussion of what are the educationalimplications of Piaget's theory.

II. Points of Agreement

A. We all respect Piaget's theory and believe it has some-thing important to contribute to the education of youngchildren.

B. We all retain something of the methods of the child-development traditional nursery school.

C. We all criticize structured programs such as Distar whichteach academic skills.

III. Points of Disagreement

A. Interpretation of Piaget's theory: We are closer toLavatelli than to Weikart.

B. Application of Piaget's theory: We are closer to Weikart'sgroup than to Lavatelli.

LAVATELLI'S PROGRAM

I. Interpretation of Piaget's Theory

A. We find much to admire in Lavatelli's (1970a) book onPiaget's theory. We specifically agree with the followingeducational implications which she drew:

1. Value of Play and Unstructured Program Experience

"Were all nursery school teachers and psychologicalinvestigators as alert as Piaget (1951) to the con-tribution of play to cognition, there might be moreexploitation of its educational possibilities (1970a,p. 12) . . . Such concepts (as making 4 short blocks

*Part of a pre-symposium paper to be presented at the biennialmeeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Philadelphia,April 1, 1973.

2

into a tower as high as one long block) are the basisof mathematical understanding and wi).1 provide a moresolid footing for primary arithmeti. than whatever isacquired when the teachers ask of Cour-year-olds,'What comes after one?' to uhie question the childrenchorus an answer, 'Two comes after one' (1970a, p. 20).. . And, implementation of a goal to develop intel-lectual competence would mean a day mostly unstruc-tured in contrast to one in the pre-academic preschoolwhere every minute of the child's time is involved inhighly structured activity. . 0 . If we accept Piaget'stheory that knowledge is acquired through action uponthings and the relations which exist between them,then a major part of the preschool day should be re-served for free choice of activity (1970a, pp. 42-43)."

Futility of Teaching through Telling

. . .telling is not teaching, and that, as childrenuse good, open-ended materials, their intelligencegrows. . . (1970a, p. 23), . . . Indeed, a teachermay exclaim in irritation. at a pupil who gives thewrong answer, 'But you've just heard thi opposite.We've just gone over the explanation. Weren't youlistening?' Privately, the teacher may think thechild either stupid or stubborn, but more likely thechild has not acted upon the explanation to make ithis own, and so equilibration has not occurred (1970a,p. 40). . The teacher's role is to stimulate andguide, not to teach specific responses, not to tellthe child the right answer, nor even to tell him thathe is wrong. The teacher must have confidence in thechild's ability to learn on his own (1970a, p. 48).. . . . Telling children is not teaching, as Piagetreminds us, Others do not convince us that we arewrong about our ideas; only we can convince ourselves,But the teacher who knows how to ask the right questionat the right time can spark children's own search foranswers and stimulate the child to make his own dis-coveries (1970a, p. 2)."

3. Importance of Mental Activity

"Activity of the learner is essential. It is only asthe child is forced to go beyond perceptual decisionsto act mentally on what he is assimilating that men-tal structures change and intelligence grows. Activityas used here is mental activity. . .(1970a, p. 48)'

B. However, we also find some serious faults with Lavatelli'sinterpretation of Piaget's theory. These flaws led herto what we consider to be misapplications of the theory.

, yai

Uto..

1. Lavatelli fails to make the basic distinctionPiaget made between physical knowledge and loico-mathematical knowledge.

a. Thus, more than half the theory is missed.

b. Thus, application focuses upon the developmentof logico-mathematical knowledge outside thenecessary context of physical knowledge andexperience.

2. Lavatelli almost understood the operative aspectof Piaget's theory, but the following are examplesof the typo of serious errors she made:

3

a. Although she says, "Activity as used here ismental activity," she contradicts this by usingthe term "operation" to refer to specific externalactions and knowledge (such as "Establishingequivalence of sets by a one-to-one correspondenceafter physical correspondence has been destroyed(1970b, p. 43)" and "Establishing equivalencebetween two quantities of liquid by reversing aphysical operation (1970b, p. 47)").

b. Lavatelli attempts to promote abstraction oflogico-mathematical knowledge through concretemanipulation of figurative materials at thedirection of the teacher.

She states that children "eventually discoverthat quantity is conserved even with a' change.in the shape of the container (1970a, p. 21).JThis implies that conservation is outside theindividual somewhere to be found rather thanto be deduced as a result of the grouping ofoperations. It contradicts her earlier state-ment that the child must convince himself withhis own logic.

d. Lavatelli talks about making children "logicalthinkers (1970a, p. 26)" and invokes socialreinforcement as a technique by which childrencan become more logical thinkers. We see thisas contradicting Piaget's theory about howlogico-mathematical structures develop.

-t,

II. Conceptualization of Curriculum Objectives

A. Laaguage and Intellectual Competence

Although Lavatelli spoke sympathetically about thedovelopmentalists' argument for the education of thewhole child (1970a, p. 18), her objectives were pre-sented in terms of "language and intellectual compe-tence (1970a9 p. 53)."

4

This is in contrast to our emphasis on the developmentof the entire personality, with primary emphasis uponsocioemotional development.

B. Concrete Operations

Lavatelli attempted to make childr.en concrete operational

This is in contrast to our longer-range goal of formaloperations and our view that the best way to help childrenbecome formal operational is to encourage very active useof preoperational intelligence.

III, Methods of Teacl,.inG

A. General Approach

1. Teach Piaget's tasks.

Although Lavatelli mentioned equilibration as veryimportant for the child's development of the oper-ations he needs to succeed on the tasks (1970a, pp.36-41), her program consists of teaching Piaget'stasks.

We do not teach Piaget's tasks, but view them simplyas useful diagnostic tools. Teaching the tasks is amistake for two reasons: a) It is like fertilizingsoil samples instead of the entire field, and b) Itassumes that the various cognitive areas (such asclassification, number, and seriation) can developseparately. In reality, as Piaget insists, all opera-tions develop together.

2. Combine str tur d t _

child development

Despite Lavatelli's praise for the cognitive value ofplay, she presented her program in terms of separatetraining sessions conducted outside the classroom.

We do not directly attempt to teach concrete opera-tions and therefore have no place for structured (orunstructured) training sessions outside the classroom.

rlim

Our program is entirely unstructured, with theoption, however, for o Coacher to conduct somegroup activities (storytelling, group games,planning time, evaluation at the end of a day,rhythmics, etc.). We place heavy emphasis uponthe importance of the natural social context forchildren's cognitive development. We believethat children will develop the ability to coor-dinate their thinking by, coordinating differentpoints of view (an by failing to coordinate differentpoints of view).

.5

3, Use commercial kit of materials.

In contrast with Lan7atelliis use of a commercialpackage, we use household junk and other free orinexpensive materials for the bulk of our program.Although we fl.nd such commercial materials aspuzzles, blocks, and transportation toys useful,we feel that any kit limits what a child can learn.

13. Principles of Teac2iin;1. Sequence the content by following the developmental

sequengeu

Lavatelli notes that her program "is planned withdevelopmental sequence in mind (1970b, p. 5)." Sheoutlines "logical processes as they appear develop-mentally in early childhood in each of three areas--Classification, Space, and Number and Seriation(1970a, p. 44)."

Piaget has shown that children do generally masterthe tasks in the order Lavatelli gives (though we'would quarrel with minor points in her descriptionof the sequences): However, the existence of adevelopmental sequence on the tasks does not implya sequence of instruction. In seriation, for example,the fact that children show a Stage II in which theydepend on the figurative "good form" does not in theleast imply that one should teach children to dependon figurative materials.

2. Direct the child's actions

Despite Lavatelli's insistence on the importance ofself-activity for the child's development of logic,and despite her statement that "The teacher must haveconfidence in the child's ability to learn on his own(1970a, p. 48)," she has the teacher direct the child's

6

actions. For example, in a classification activity,Lavatelli's teacher tells the child to "take the tworings and put them on the table so that the greensquare is not inside either ring. ,Now, I'd likeyou to pick up one of the rings and place it so thatthe green square is inside the ring (1970b, p. 50)0"Throughout the lessons, we find the initiative rest?ing solely with the teacher.

External direction of a child's action prevents thespontaneous mental action which Piaget finds in child-initiated actions. Lavatelli seams to think that byputting the child through physical actions, the mentalactions will automatically follow. We see her activi-ties as primarily physical action without mentalaction. In our curriculum, the teacher does not directthe child's actions, but, instead, does everything shecan think of to encourage the child's initiative,

3. Get the child to Live the correct answer.

We find Lavatelli's teacher most unaccepting of thepreoperational child's "wrong" answers, Despite Lava-telli's insistence that.the teacher should "not cor-rect wrong answers (1970b, pp. 2, 23)," it seems tous that this is precisely what she does. Verbal andnonverbal procedures for what to do when a child saysor does the wrong thing are carefully outlined withthe objective of getting the child to correct himself.Lavatelli recommends a variety of verbal methods. Shesuggests asking the child leading questions; for ex-ample, if a child chooses a figure other than thegreen square in the classification task, the teachershould ask, "Is that a green square?" with emphasis onthe word for the property the child has missed (1970b,p. 30), Lavatelli suggests having the child repeatafter the teacher; for example, in a classificationactivity, the teacher says, "Show me a red bead, Good.Now tell me what it is. Say, 'it's a red bead,' (1970b,p. 10)." In other instances, Lavatelli says theteacher should give the child a verbal rule; for ex-ample, in a number, measurement and space activity,the teacher is told to "Alternately add and take away(from a group of cubes), repeat a verbal formula eachtime, 'Adding makes things have more; taking one alllymakes things have less' (1970b, 130 44)." Throughout,Lavatelli's teacher is exhort3d to "remind the child,

11 "recall for him. . ," and to "call atten-fiOn to . . ."

In addition to these less direct verbal communicationsto the child that he .is wrong, Lavatelli also recom-mends more direct demonstrations of actions she wants

BEI CO'Y 1101,4Bilthe child to perform. For exampls, in a classifi-cation task, she has children make as many differentpairs as they can with three types of curs. If thechiliren do not use a system of starting with onecar and combining that. car with itself and then withthe other two, then starting with the next car, etc.,she has the teacher "say,LWould it help if we used asystem like this?' and proceed to demonstrate theforegoing system (19'70b, p. 15)."

Another jsne rat nethod Lavatelli uses to help childrenget the right answer is to provide figurative materials.For example, she recommends teaching classificationby having children arrange pictures of objects of twocolors and two sizes into a 2 X 2 matrix, She alsorecommends figurative demonstrations. For example, ifa child does not conserve, she suggests that the teacher"Try gradual transformation of the visual correspondence(1970b, p, 40)."

Lavatelli also has her teacher give other action strate-gies to children. For example, in a liquid conservationactivity, the teacher has "the children check by pour-ing (1970b, p. 47)" to see if there is 3s much to drinkin two 4-oz. containers as in one 8-oz. container.

In short, we find Lavatelli's teacher appears much likea Distar teacher. This lack of acceptance of the child'sprap-0T.tional thinking runs strongly counter to ourbelief that the teacher should respect the child'sthinking and not try to force him to conform to adultlogic. Such an effort is futile and harmful from ourpoint of view because if we want him to reach formal

.operations, the child must go through many stages ofbeing wrong.

4. Reinforce the right answer.

The Lavatelli teacher reinforces correct answers.

In our curriculum, social reinforcement of the child'scorrect logic and language is considered undesirablebecause our aim is not to produce correct answers.Furthermore, reinforcement is unnecessary because whencorrect logic is constructed, it is a permanent acqui -.sition anyway.

C. Role of the Teacher

1. Problem-maker (1970a, p, 102)

The Lavatelli teacher gives problems for children tosolve.

In our. curriculum, in contrast, the teacher createsan environment which encourages children to createtheir own problems.

BtS

2. Director of child's actions,

The Lavatelli teacher directs children's actions.

8

In our curriculum, in contrast, the teacher encouragesthe child's initiative and spontaneous actions.

3. 212.42Alex____:.(2.2_,..triolLit_q and correct language

The Lavatelli teacher models the correct responses.

In our curriculum, such modelling is considered futileand harmful because the child must go through manystages of being wrong aid must construct his own logicand language.

4. Reinforcer

See Teaching Principle 4, above.

WEIKART, ROGERS, ADCOCK, AND MCCLELLAND'S PROGRAM

I. InVezmyetation of pawl-1'8_11224x

A. Physical Knowledza

The Weikart group fails to make the basic distinctionPiaget made between physical knowledge and logico-mathematical knowledge. See our comments on Lavatelli'sfailure to make this distinction, p. 3, above.

B. BusavataIlaa

The Weikart group's total curriculum emphasis on repre-sentational ability is a focus on one small part of thechild's developing intelligence. Piaget's concern inthe development of logico-muthematical aspects of intel-ligence is reflective abstraction, not representation.

The Weikart group not only overemphasized a small partof Piaget's theory but also confused Piaget's develop-mental stages with levels of representation. In Theagnitivel Oriented Curriculum (Weikart, et al, 1971),development from the sensory-motor to preoperationallevel is linked to the index; development to concreteoperations is linked with the symbol; and developmentto formal operations is linked with the sign (pp. 5, 35).They reduced development to mere learning to manipulatewords and mental images, and say, "The ultimate level inPiaget's outline of levels of representation is the signlevel, or representation through (written) words (p. 5)". . . and "a certain level of mental representationhas to be reached in order to accumulate the fund of'mental pictures' which serve as the initial referentsfor the development of language (p. 6),"

9

In Piaget's theory, neither the symbol nor the signis particularly important to the child's uttAinment ofconcrete or formal operations. Actually, the symboland sign both appuur at about the age of 18-24 monthsand develop together, Moreover, aecord.Ing to Piaget'stheory, thinking cannot be reduced to the manipulationof mental images or words.

The focus on representation leads the Weikart group tothe completely uni- Piagetian definition of "operations"as "representati I.onal acts (p. Moreover, they talkabout 'levels of operation (p. 35)1 or "modes of opera-tion (p. 89)" as being motoric and verbal. They say,The child usually operates on the motoric level beforehe operates on the verbal level (p. 89)."

C. Lorilco-Mathematical Knowledge

The Weikart group overlooked the central meaning ofPiaget's description of the development of eiatIsificationarid seriation abilities. Piaget emphasizes the child'sactive mental coordinations which indicate the existenceof a general cognitive structure. In contrast, theWeikart group views classification and seriation in thefollowing ways:

Classification: They view classification as sortingbehavior that progresses from "relational" to "descrip-tive" and "generic". For Piaget, on the other hand; theheart of classification is the coordination of intensionand extension.

Seriationi They view seriation as ordering behaviorMe., spatially arranging objects) that progresses fromthe ability to order three objects to four, five, six,

. ten objects. For Piaget, on the other hand, theheart of seriation is the deductive coordination of rela-tions, including relative differences.

D. sxatj.emorai.z1Cnowled_mt

The Weikart group overlooked the essence of Piaget'stheory and reduced spatio-temporal relations to bodyawareness and words such as "around/through" and "first/last." For Piaget, the essence of spatio-temporalknowledge is the grouping of spatial and temporal opera-tions.

In short, the Weikart group's theory of development is notPiaget's, and the only thing we recognize is Piaget's vocabu-lary,

10

II. Conceptualization of Curriculum Objective

A. p_ovelo c2.19e)resentational_Abili_tx

As a result of their. theory (not Plagot's) that (lora-tions are "representational acts (p. 4)," Weik'irt sgroup put an inordinate amount of effort into gettingchildren to do things at the index level and then atthe symbol level* and to u.iiierstand a long list ofwords such as "in/out" and "first/next/last" (pp. 93-145). We have nothing against encouraging children'sdevelopment or representational ability, but the pre-occupation with words in this curriculum does seem tobe at the expellee of operative thinking,

B. Bevelument of Classification Ability

For the Weikert group the objective in classificationis to get children to progress from "relational" sort-ing to "descriptive" and then "generic" sorting (pp. 7,94-105). This interpretation is based on Sigel's(1970) work, rather than Piaget's. For Piaget, what isimportant in classification is the coordination ofintension and extension. Furthermore, whatever inten-sive property the child chooses is correct, and thereis no developmental difference between "descriptive"and "generic' sorting.

C. Development of Seriation Abilttx

For the Weikert group the objective in seriation is toget children to order four sizes, four quantities, andthree qualities (pp. 7, 106-118). For Piaget, on theother hand, the ability to order objects is beside thepoint, particularly when sizes and a figurative "goodform" are involved. The important activity for thechild is to introduce relationships (e.g., differencesand similarities and relations) between objects anddeductively coordinate these relationships, includingthat of relative differences,

D. Dalallanment of luatial Reasoning.

For the Weikart group, spatial reasoning is reduced tospatial relationships, and the objectives are a) bodyawareness, b) words related to positions (e.g., "on/off"),and c) words related to directions (e.g., "up/down")(pp, 7, 119 -134). These objectives seem no differentfrom those found in a traditional child-development cur-

*Every "conceptual focus" in this curriculum is repeated, onceat the index level and again at the symbol level. Piaget would haveparticular difficulty in figuring out what is meant by classifyingand seriatim; at the index level (pp. 95, 99, 104, 107, 112-113,116-117).

41,11)1

riculum. For Piaget, in contrast, the importantdevelopment during the preoperational period is thestructuring of space at the representational levelwhich loads to the "grouping" of spatial operations.

E. novel° rteaent. of. Teumoral

11

The Weikart group reduces temporal reasoning to temporalrelationships, and the objectives are words related toa) the "beginning and end of 1_me intervals," b) the"ordering of events," and c) "different lengths of timewithin time periods" (pp. 7, 135-143), For Piaget, incontrast, the important development diring the preoper-ational period is the structuring of time aid the "group-ing" of temporal operations.

In short, the Weikart group's conceptualization of objectivesis not related to Piaget s theory in any way except for theheadings "classification "soriation," l

Aspatia relations,"

and " temporal relations. We have nothing against many oftheir curriculum goals except for the claim that the goalswere derived from Piaget's theory.

III. Methods of Machine,

A, General Approach

The traditional child-development approach is advocated,including sociodraalatic play, field trips, stories, art,blocks, puzAles, and rhythm activities.

B. principles_af Teaching

We gleaned the following five principles of teaching fromThe Ccaattixely Oriented ...Curriculum.

1. Inearato2levelp of roaresentatkonnyith .ftlevels ofwitation.

This statement makes no sense from the point of viewof Piaget's theory, but we will try to interpret itanyway. By "levels of representation," the Weikartgroup seems to moan thinking in images,or words. Informs of what the teacher does in the classroom, theintegration seems to say merely that the teacher hasthe children move and talk, while she talks, withthe goal of learning a specific concept, We cannotsee how this principle helps the teacher in any way.In fact, if we were teachers trying to implement thiscurriculum, we honestly would not know what to dowith the triangle in Figure 2 (p. 14). (It seems tous that this principle is simply used to justifyactivities with children which are antuelly arbitrarilyselected.)

f0112

2. a u4rre wh t thAchildis to leattaL

See p. 5 for our comments on this principle.

3. acus 01_0:ay...one conogaLa.t_stiert in auxianastitkty.s.

The Weikart group says, "In any given activity theteacher deals with only on concept at a time. Ifshe sees the activity as a good way of workingtoward other concepts, she uses it again at anothertime and emphasizes a different goal rather thancram every possible goal into a single activity (p.15)."

In this regard, they also describe three stages ateacher goes through in learning to apply thisprinciple. During the first stage of "learning theconceptual framework and terminology, . . . she isprimarily concerned with whether or nut a particularactivity fits tho stated goals. .She discovers,for example, that feeding classroom pots, a tradi-tional preschool chore, involves elements of temporalrelations (time intervals, time sequences, dJrationof time, etc.). * ."

"This gradual recognition of the conceptual framework.of the ourrioulum in familiar aotivities leads tothe second stage, whore the teacher attaches allpossible cognitive elements of the curriculum to theparticular activity in use. For example, if theactivity is baking a cake, the teacher would recog-nize that this involves temporal relations a .$

seriation. .; classification. .1 and spatialrelations. Gradually, the teacher begins tosee that this method is too complicated for teachingconcepts to young children who need special assis-tance."

"With this realization the teacher begins to operateat the third stage. Now she selects specific acti-vities that relate primarily to one specific curri-culum goal. Other concepts may be, and indeed are,closely involved, but the primary concept to betaught is kept as the main focus. Instead of oreactivity employed to teach many cognitive components,many activities are developed to reach one cognitivegoal (pp. 70-71)."

The teacher in our curriculum is muo% more like theteacher at the second stage the Weikart group des-cribes. According to Paget, loarnIng is a muchmessier process than assumed 'ay anyone trying toprogram it. Insisting on one predetermined goal ata time stifles children's curiosity and initiativeand prevents them from learning.

13

2.9172.110. .the child

The Weikart group 'Assumes that the preoperationalchild "initially does not respond to verbal direc-tionsl.is slow to respond to queetions and has avary limited vocabulary (p. 54)." They thus sug-gest 'strong languaae inpit tied, to (the child's)experience (p. 54)." They further explain, "Throughverbal stimulation,,the child is exposed to 4 widevariety of language patterns. Tim teacher explainsthe child's actions, her personal actions, and socialinteractions that heve gained the child's attention(p. 55)." The Weikart group also recommends expan-sion and wiestioning at the next stage of develop-ment (p. 55).

Maacoby and Zellner (1970) quote the Weikart programon language as follows:

"We ask the teachers to give the children practicein labels, and also (to) emphasize the relationalwords 'same as,' 'third,' and so on. We find thatthe teachers tend.to simplify their language toomuch.they'll say, ''Get in line,' and we want themto say, 'If everyone is quiet, then we will get inlino. We ask the teachers to present choices ver-bally: vThere are two ,4eys we can go to the coatcloset -- straight across the room or around the tableby the wall. Which way shall we go?' We ask themto avoid giving directions with body English. Wetell the child what he's doing while he's doing it,and ask him to tell us what he's doing. We mighteven stop a child when he's halfway down a slideand ask him what he's doing. Then we tell him whathe's done, and what he's going to do, and get himto produce these constructions before we move on tothe next step (p. 46)."

The preoperational child described as so limited inlanguage ability does not correspond to many of thepreoperational children we know, (We wonder whether.the Weikart curriculum is designed for retarded.children.) We would argue, however, against the useof verbal bombardment even for retarded children orchildren of poverty. Recent research by psycho.linguists (see, for example, Brown, 1973) does notsupport the idea that language development occursthrough exposure to language patterns or to a barrageof words. Although language development is stillsomewhat of a mystery, Camden's (1972) research sug-gests that verbal extension of the ideas expressedby a child may be of more use than simple expansion

iVAKAitti

14

of his grammatical syntax. Therefore, we certainlydo not object to the presence of rich language inthe preschool classroom. What we do object to islanguage which is unnecessary for meaningful com-munication (such as telling tho child whet he isding), language that Interrupts the child'sthinking (such as stopping the chlld when he ishalfway down the slide to ask him to tell the teacherwhat he is doing), and language which prevents thechild from pursuing his own problems (such as theactivities described in the Weikart guide).

5. Rstneoroe

Throughout the book by the Weikart group, the word"reinforce" appears over and over. We have alreadynoted (on p. 7) in connection with our discussion ofthe Lavatelli program that the notion of using reinforcement for promoting learning aad developmentreflects a 23ychology which is foreign to Piaget'stheory.

C. Points aAypAto s gpj a cal -Aar.een!!::qt,

In spits of the above principles of teaching which gostrongly counter to Piaget's theory, we found in Thtaskaaitixelx Orient;sd Cu several passages thatseemed to be to 50M0 extent in harmony with Piaget's views'

1. Education must bc1actiye.

Weikart says, .children must be activeparticipants in learning and must have the opportunityto test both incorrect and correot answers through amultiplicity of experiences within a highly variedenvironment (p. IX)."

Our only quarrel with this statement is that childrenshould not be considered "participants in learning."Rather, they are the learners, and do not merelyparticipate in learning.

2. The role of lanqu.at is overraedin 1±102tpcips&ARnakJaraarakes

The Weikmrt r:,:'eop says that ". 0 .langlage is riottaught 53)". . .and "Language cannotbe depended to teach a concept.(p. 54)."

Despite this (1-.FIclaimer, it seems to J8 that theWeikart aoas overemphasize words, both inits specific objectives and in its teaching methods.

BEST COPY AWAKE

3. One should not teach for the right answer.

The Weikart group says, "Perhaps the most damagingis the convergent question, for which there isonly one right answer. The message seems to be,'Miss that answer and you are really dumb' (pp 55-56)."

15

Despite this disclaimer, Weikart's group insistson teaching for one predetermined goal at a time,and the word "reinforce" appears frequently through-out the book. With a long list of specific goalssuch as "same/not the same," "big/little," "on/off,"and "start/stop," it is hard to see how a child canbe encouraged to produce many different correctanswers.

4. One cannot specify the details of a curriculum forall children or all teachers.

The Weikart group says that ". . .teachers mustactively participate in constructing the specificexpression of the curriculum for their own classroomand group of children (p. ). . . . Rejected com-pletely is the utilization of curriculum 'scripts'of what. to think, what to say, and how to put aparticular goal into operation (p. 70)."

IV. Concluding Remarks

Weikart, in the introduction to his curriculum, acknowledgesthat he "alters some of the (Piagetian) terms such as 'oper-ations' (p. IX)." He implies that he finds the theory inade-quate to "do the job" in "a practical classroom program."Therefore, he argues that theory "may be altered to meetdiffering situations when it seems advisable," even thoughhe admits that "This approach to theory leads into troublevery easily, because it permits a flexibility which may cir-cumvent the theory." Weikart concludes that "while there isa growing congregation of 'high church' Piagetians in pre-school education, I would classify this curriculum as theproduct of 'store front' Piagetian theory utilization."

If Piaget's theory must be altered to fit the developmentalneeds of children in real life, something must be seriouslywrong with the theory. We feel, however, that the problemlies in the inadequate assimilation of Piaget's theory bythe Weikart group, and that their distortion of Piaget'stheory leaves it unrecognizable. Their theory should belabelled just that: theory. Piaget should not be blamedfor it.

From our point of view, the salvation of the Weikart programis that they don't derive all their practice from their theory.Because their theory doesn't provide any rationale for includ-ing or not including field trips, blocks, art, puzzles, rhy-thm activities, they retain much of what we find good in the

16

child development programs. It seems to jS that inapplying a "store front" version of their (not Piaget's)theory, they come closer to the application of a "highchurch" version of' Piaget's theory.

V. Epilogue

It seems to us that the first considerations in derivingcurriculum goals frOfa Piaget s theory must be the folLowing:

A. Sho:!Al-term cognitive goals must be set in the contextof long-term goals, i.e., formal operations.

B. For Piaget, the goal of education is the developmentof the entire personality, including moral and socialdevelopment. Although the Weikart group states thatmost observer's to welt -run Cognitively Oriented Curriculumclassrooms say that the children's emotional and socialneeds are being met (p. x), moral and social developnentare not fostered by merely :ii,JetiALLohildren's emotionaland social needs. The short-terms goals in this realmmust also bo sat in the context of Long -term goals. ForPiaget, the goal of education is noting less taandevelopmz3nt of the truly autonomous personality able tolive in harmony with other personalities.

REFERENCES

Brown, R. "Development of the First Language in tho H,J4wall Species;"A49ricE1.42.A.4q.hcM411.s1:.. 28 (2), 1973, 97-176

C. c;,11(1 Equeation. New York: Holt, Rine-hart and Winston, Inc., 1972.

Lavatelll, C.. Fia.aet'A Thor Aztalte.424.11Early_ChlAdhpodCur:37:Jet&111. Boston: -inert:Ian Science and Engineering, Inc.,1970a.

Lavatolli, C. Teacher's Guide to.,AcsoalpAndAgrky...01111dAood.Curri-cu.11m--A iroaKlaul. Boston: American Soignee and Engineer-ing, 197(10.

Maccohy, E. and Zollner, M. f.;.1)eriAlents...1.1Prippyy EducAtion:A.122s.A, of Pralfloj Folkowl.qiirgAgi... New York: HarcoUrtWraceJovanovich, Inc., 1970.

Sigel, I. and Olmsted, P. "Modification of Cognitive Skills amongLower-Class Black Children," in Hellmuth, J. (Ed.) Disldvantaa3d

comeAsAtAryAqucatkolt_ . ytIonIAD6 .

Neu Yorkl irunne77Mazel, Inc., 0/0..A,

We1kart, D., Rogers, LO, Adcock, Co, and McClelland, D. The_Coa-...

mAKiv;kx.CI.Kkajltedim... Urbana, Illinois: ERIC-NAEfO,1971.