not think as adults do. Rather, they need to pass through a series of developmental
stages before they acquire mature thinking.
Piaget’s theory had a great impact on education and contributed to the
perception of the learner as an active constructor of knowledge rather than as the
receiving end of a conduit through which knowledge is transmitted. As Wood (1988:
19) comments, Piaget’s (1951) claim that ‘thought is internalized action’ suggests that
children need to engage actively in practical problem-solving tasks before they
understand abstract concepts. In this process of maturation, Piaget considers that play
and experimentation have a crucial role to play. According to O’ Brien (2000b, Unit
1: 9) the above claims have greatly influenced primary education in the Englishspeaking world towards discovery learning and child-centred teaching. Moreover,
Piaget’s theory that children pass through certain stages of development before they
can acquire mature, rational thought has led, as Brewster (1997: 2) emphasizes, to the
concept of ‘learning readiness’. This, as Wood (1988: 24) comments, suggests that
any attempt to teach things to a child before she is ‘mentally’ ready does not foster
development, though the child may learn some ‘empty’ procedures. What is more,
such premature teaching might become a frustrating experience for the child who
cannot understand what is being taught. Within this context, a different framework
emerges for the analysis of children’s errors. Opposite to the behaviouristic notion
that errors are an indication of imperfect learning (see section 1.1.1), ΒαρνάβαΣκούρα (1994: 37) emphasizes that, for Piaget, the errors made by children reflect
their rational effort to solve problems according to their, yet immature, way of
thinking and thus they are an indication of a process of development which has not
yet been completed. This makes us assume that correction of such errors by the
teacher would be in vain as students lack the necessary cognitive development to
understand them.
Although revolutionary and, in many respects, attractive mainly because, as
Wood (1988: 45) claims, it gives a promise of generality, Piaget’s theory is not
without limitations. Two factors which are not appropriately developed, according to
his critics, are the limited role Piaget assigns to social context and to language for the
cognitive development of the child.
Piaget does not deny that society plays a role to a child’s development but he
limits this contribution to the provision of experiences which the child assimilates.
However, in doing so he seems to underestimate the fact that different social contexts
13