Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 137–148 | Cite as

Piaget's epistemic subject and science education: Epistemological vs. psychological issues

  • Richard F. Kitchener
Article

Abstract

Many individuals claim that Piaget's theory of cognitive development is empirically false or substantially disconfirmed by empirical research. Although there is substance to such a claim, any such conclusion must address three increasingly problematic issues about the possibility of providing an empirical test of Piaget's genetic epistemology: (1) the empirical underdetermination of theory by empirical evidence, (2) the empirical difficulty of testing competence-type explanations, and (3) the difficulty of empirically testing epistemic norms. This is especially true of a central epistemic construct in Piaget's theory — the epistemic subject. To illustrate how similar problems of empirical testability arise in the physical sciences, I briefly examine the case of Galileo and the correlative difficulty of empirically testing Galileo's laws. I then point out some important epistemological similarities between Galileo and Piaget together with correlative changes needed in science studies methodology. I conclude that many psychologists and science educators have failed to appreciate the difficulty of falsifying Piaget's theory because they have tacitly adopted a philosophy of science at odds with the paradigm-case of Galileo.

Keywords

Science Education Empirical Research Science Study Cognitive Development Empirical Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J.: 1978, ‘Arguments Concerning Representations for Mental Imagery’,Psychological Review 85, 249–277.Google Scholar
  2. Boden, M. A.: 1988,Computer Models of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Brainerd, C. J.: 1978a, ‘Cognitive Development and Instructional Theory’,Contemporary Educational Psychology 3, 37–50.Google Scholar
  4. Brainerd, C. J.: 1978b, ‘The Stage Question in Cognitive-Developmental Theory’,The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2, 173–213.Google Scholar
  5. Breslow, L.: 1981, ‘Reevaluation of the Literature on the Development of Transitive Inference’,Psychological Bulletin 89, 325–351.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, G. & Desforges, C.: 1977, ‘Piagetian Psychology and Education: Time for Revision’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 47, 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, G. & Desforges, C.: 1979,Piaget's Theory: A Psychological Critique, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1965,Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, L.: 1935,Aristotle, Galileo and the Tower of Pisa, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Corlett, J. A.: 1991, ‘Some Possible Relations between Psychology and Epistemology’,New Ideas in Psychology.Google Scholar
  11. Dray, W.: 1957,Law and Explanation in History, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, B.: 1979.Rational Belief Systems, Rowman & Littlefield, Totowa, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Ellis, B.: 1990,Truth and Objectivity, Blackwell's, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Galilei, Galileo, 1954,Dialogue concerning Two New Sciences, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Galilei, Galileo, 1967,Dialogue concerning Two Chief World Systems (second edition), University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Gelman, R. & Baillargeon, R.: 1983, ‘A Review of some Piagetian Concepts’, in J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markman (eds.), P. H. Mussen (series ed.),Handbook of Child Psychology, John Wiley, New York, 167–230.Google Scholar
  17. Goldman, A.: 1986,Epistemology and Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Inhelder, B.: 1978, ‘De l'approache structurale à l'approache procédurale: introduction à l'étude des stratégies’,Actes du XXle Congrès international de Psychologie, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 99–118.Google Scholar
  19. Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J.: 1979, ‘Procédures et structures’,Archives de Psychologie XLVII, 165–176.Google Scholar
  20. Kitchener, R. F.: 1979. ‘Radical Naturalism and Radical Behaviorism’,Scientia 114, 107–116.Google Scholar
  21. Kitchener, R. F.: 1980, ‘Genetic Epistemology, Normative Epistemology and Psychologism’,Synthese 45, 257–80.Google Scholar
  22. Kitchener, R. F., 1986,Piaget's Theory of Knowledge: Genetic Epistemology and Scientific Reason, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  23. Kitchener, R. F.: forthcoming,Genetic Epistemology: Psychological Foundations of Naturalistic Epistemology.Google Scholar
  24. Maffie, J., 1990, ‘Recent Work on Naturalized Epistemology’,American Philosophical Quarterly 27, 281–293.Google Scholar
  25. Meadows, S.: 1988, ‘Piaget's Contribution to understanding Cognitive Development: An Assessment from the Late 1980's’, in K. Richardson (ed.),Cognitive Development in Adolescence, Open University, East Sussex, 19–32.Google Scholar
  26. Niaz, M.: 1991, ‘Role of the Epistemic Subject in Piaget's Genetic Epistemology and its Importance for Science Education’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  27. Novak, J. D.: 1977a, ‘Epicycles and the Homocentric Earth: Or What is Wrong withStages of Cognitive Development?’,Science Education 61, 393–395.Google Scholar
  28. Novak, J. D.: 1977b, ‘An Alternative to Piagetian Psychology for Science and Mathematics Education’,Science Education 61, 453–477.Google Scholar
  29. Novak, J. D.: 1977c,A Theory of Education, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  30. Overton, W. F.: 1982, ‘Cognitive Development: A Competence-Activiation/Utilization Approach’, in T. Field (ed.),Review of Human Development, Wiley, New York, 217–241.Google Scholar
  31. Pascual-Leone, J.: 1976, ‘Metasubjective Problems of Constructive Cognition: Forms of Knowing and their Psychological Mechanism’,Canadian Psychological Review 17, 110–125.Google Scholar
  32. Piaget, J.: 1971,Structuralism, Harper, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Piaget, J.: 1987,Possibility and Necessity: Volume 1.The Role of Possibility in Cognitive Development, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  34. Popper, K.: 1964,The Poverty of Historicism (third edition), Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Pylyshyn, Z. W.: 1972, ‘Competence and Psychological Reality’,American Psychologist 27, 546–552.Google Scholar
  36. Pylyshyn, Z. W.: 1973, ‘The Role of Competence Theories in Cognitive Psychology’,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2, 21–50.Google Scholar
  37. Quine, W. V. O.: 1969, ‘Epistemology Naturalized’, inOntological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia University Press, New York, 69–90.Google Scholar
  38. Rossi, I., 1974, ‘Structuralism as Scientific Method’, in I. Rossi (ed.),The Unconscious in Cuture: The Structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss in Perspective, New York, Dutton, 60–106.Google Scholar
  39. Rossi, I.: 1982, ‘Relational Structuralism as an Alternative to the Structural and Interpretative Paradigms of Empiricist Orientation’, in I. Rossi (ed.),Structural Sociology, Columbia University Press, New York, 3–21.Google Scholar
  40. Siegel, H.: 1980, ‘Justification, Discovery, and the Naturalizing of Epistemology’,Philosophy of Science 47, 297–321.Google Scholar
  41. Skinner, B. F.: 1945, ‘The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms’,Psychological Review 52, 270–277.Google Scholar
  42. Sloman, A.: 1978,The Computer Revolution in Philosophy: Philosophy, Science and Models of Mind, Harvester Press, Sussex.Google Scholar
  43. Theater, E. S. & Collyer, C. E.: 1978, ‘The Development of Transitive Inference: A Review of Recent Approaches’,Psychological Bulletin 85, 1327–1343.Google Scholar
  44. Wohlwill, J.: 1973,The Study of Behavioral Development, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard F. Kitchener
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations