Weekly Response #7 for EDP 610

R 7

Question: what are the similarities between the thoughts of Piaget and James? How do we incorporate constructivism into traditional instructional approaches?

            Piaget viewed “intellectual acts as acts of organization of and adaptation to the environment” (Wadsworth, 1996, p. 13).  In his assertion, Piaget incorporated both biological and environmental influences on the development of people’s minds, which is one of the differences between constructivism and behaviorism.  Behaviorists treat persons like machines that respond to the environment.  Differently, Piaget’s viewpoint is similar to James’.  James (1962) stated that “man…is primarily a practical being, whose mind is given him aid in adapting him to this world’s life” (p. 12).   I agree with Piaget and James because people do not only respond to the environment passively, but more importantly, are gradually changing the world in the direction for which they hope.  Hence, the concept “adaption” is more precise in this sense to describe the relation between people and the world in which they live.

            One focus of Piaget’s genetic epistemology is to explore “the science of how knowledge is acquired.”  In chapter one of Wadsworth’s book, the answer for this question is simply presented.  New schemas are built in the process of assimilation and accommodation, which are the two main approaches for the adaption process.  The balance between assimilation and accommodation form a state called equilibrium.  An unbalanced state (disequilibrium) motivates people to learn new knowledge.  When I first learned algebra, I felt uncomfortable solving calculation questions because the letters (i.e. a, b, …, x, y, z) matched neither my previous knowledge structure for calculations nor my knowledge structure for letters that only represent the pronunciation of  Chinese characters.  In this state of disequilibrium, I failed to fit this new information into my existing schema (i.e. assimilation), so I had to modify my old schema (i.e. accommodation) in order to let the new function of letters create a new equilibrium.  In the procedure from unbalanced to balanced state, my knowledge of math was being expanded. 

            Piaget’s idea of schema building has some similarities with James’ thought about the development of acquired reaction.  James (1962) argued that “every acquired reaction is, as a rule, either a complication grafted on a native reaction, or a substitute for a native reaction which the same object originally tended to provoke” (p. 20).  They both agreed that new knowledge is based on prior cognitive structures.  At the same time, James’ association of ideas could also be employed in Piaget’s epistemology.  Constructing a strong and habitual association is building a schema in people’s minds.

             I believe the concepts and tenets of Piaget could explain how children acquire their knowledge in some subjects like math, physics, and chemistry.  One thing we learned from Piaget is that children can learn initiatively as long as they realize their unbalanced situation and can find a way to reach a new balance.  However, as Airasian and Malsh (1997) reminded, the progress for each student could vary significantly.  When teachers try to apply the principles of genetic epistemology into classrooms with twenty or thirty students, their instruction and students’ learning might not be easy to control.   My opinion is that for teaching regular students with limited educational resources, some basic principles are sufficient for teachers.  For example, the understanding that each student constructs knowledge system in their own way would help teachers be more considerable and stop requiring all students to reach the same level of content when subject matter is taught in a traditional manner.  The application of constructivism might be more appropriate for special education because of the smaller class sizes and a more flexible evaluation system.