A Lifelong Learning Journey; Utilising Piaget's and Biggs's Theories of Cognitive Development

A lifelong learning journey; utilising Piaget's and Biggs's theories of cognitive development

Peter Sutherland, University of Stirling, Scotland

Paper presented at SCUTREA, 31st Annual Conference, 3-5 July 2001, University of East London

A comparison of the theories of Piaget and Biggs together with their applications

The start of my journey

THE theme of this conference is 'Travellers' Tales: from adult education to lifelong learning ... and beyond.' My paper describes a journey which I have made over 37 years as an educationist. My journey started as a teacher of science to 8-13-year-old boys. Simultaneously I studied for a degree in education where I was introduced to the ideas of the Swiss philosopher/educationist Piaget. I tried out his conservation of quantity experiment with a class of 9-year old boys. Water was poured from a tall, thin cylinder into a short, wide cylinder in front of the children. They were asked 'Which has the most water?' Half understood that both are the same; but the other half could not get it. I underwent a conversion experience to Piaget's stages of development which has underpinned my professional life as an educationist ever since.

Table 1: Piaget's stages of cognitive development ______

1. sensori-motor activity.

2. language-based pre-operational thinking e.g. intuitive thinking.

3. concrete operational thinking.

4. formal operational thinking.

Some years later this evolved into a more substantial journey by way of a PhD under Professor Edwin Peel. I investigated Piaget's stages cross-sectionally across the school age range.

A change of direction towards adult education and lifelong learning

Since I came to Stirling University in the late 1980s I switched my focus of attention from children/adolescents to adults. My journey (1999) took the form of applying Piaget's stages of thinking and theory of knowledge to adults.

In colleges of further education teachers need to assume that their students are concrete operational or transitional, whereas in institutes of higher education (i.e. universities) teachers need to assume that some of their students will still be transitional.

The implication is what is appropriate is a hierarchical elitist system such as the traditional universities catering for the abstract thinkers. This needs to be complemented by institutions offering less academic, more practical courses for the concrete thinkers. The implications argue against comprehensive education for 18-22 year olds; unless differentiation for abstract and concrete thinkers can be offered.

Recently the locus of my journey moved to Australia.

The application of Biggs's levels of observed learning outcome to adults had been carried out by Boulton-Lewis (1999).

Biggs's (1999) levels are: Table 2: Biggs's levels of observed learning outcome ______

1. prestructural - the learning is irrelevant.

2. unistructural -the learning is relevant, but the learner only focuses on one aspect.

3. multistructural - the learner focuses on a number of relevant aspects but fails to integrate them.

4. relational - the learner integrates the different aspects with each other to arrive at a coherent whole structure and meaning.

5. extended abstract - the learner generalises and extends the whole to take on new and more abstract features.

These are allied to his (1999) hierarchical forms of knowledge (Table 3).

Table 3: Biggs's hierarchical forms of knowledge ______formal 1 (typical of first year undergraduates) : Declarative knowledge: factual knowledge of a discipline, represented in symbols.

Procedural knowledge: allows for purposeful manipulation of declarative knowledge for what ever purpose is needed.

Conditional knowledge: knowing when to use certain procedures and to access appropriate content. It is knowing how and why. formal 2/postformal (typical of postgraduates): Theoretical knowledge Metatheoretical knowledge I became interested in comparing Biggs's levels with Piaget's stages.

This paper aims at comparing and contrasting the ideas of Piaget and Biggs. Is therea common theme or themes and therefore a common message for teachers of adults? Or are the differences such that each is sui generis and should be regarded by practitioners as needing to be applied in its own way (if atall)? This is investigated by a process of analytic enquiry.

The stage/level frameworks of Piaget and Biggs will be compared and contrasted and the implications for the teaching of adults explored.

Implications of Piaget's stages for lifelong learning

Sutherland (1999) has been particularly interested in factors which cause an adult's Piagetian stage either (a) to "develop" from concrete to formal operational or (b) to "regress" back from formal to concrete operations. It maybe that the challenge of studying for an academic degree after many years of cogntitive existence at a concrete level may stimulate an adult into (a). Or a personal tragedy, for example an unfortunate menopause/andropause or a stroke, may cause the opposite to occur. As there is, as yet, little firm empirical evidence, the discussion remains speculative.

Table 4: Differences and similarities between the neo-Piagetian and neo-Biggsian models

Neo-Piagetian Neo-Biggsian

There is a theory of learning. There is no theory of learning.

Assessment tool not yet developed for adults A powerful tool for the assessment of adults

There is a concept of transition between major No concept of transition stages

Little work done on application to adults Much work done on application to adults Great interest in the personal circumstances of an No interest in the personal life situation of the adult adult

The most obvious difference is that Piaget provides a theory of learning to accompany his stages; whereas, as far as this author is aware, Biggs does not.

Biggs provides a powerful tool for the assessment of product with his SOLO taxonomy. Nevertheless he (1999 and personnel communication) regards his recent formulation of his ideas as very much to do with process.

Piaget's stages provide a potentially powerful assessment tool: to measure reliably the stage of thinking (concrete operational, transitional or formal operational) of a particular student is in a particular subject. However this tool still awaits further development work. Perhaps an even finer system of gradation could be devised similar to that which Sutherland (1992) evolved for school children's cognitive level.

This comparison is, of course, very similar to Sutherland's (1999) Piagetian analysis: formal operational thinking has been traditionally expected in higher education, but new entrants may only be capable of concrete operational thinking or may be transitional between concrete and abstract thinking.

An important implication for teachers arises out of this: the need to help such students through such a transitional stage into full formal operational thinking. An implication for researchers then arises of finding techniques which help teachers to do this. By contrast the Biggsian tradition does not have such a concept of transitions between levels.

However for assessment in HE the SOLO taxonomy framework has been used more than Piaget's stages. In contrast with this, those working in the Biggsian Tradition do not seem to be particularly interested in the circumstances under which an adult's SOLO level changes.

Piaget's abstract (formal operational) thinking has been traditionally expected in higher education, but new entrants may only be capable of concrete operational thinking or may be transitional between concrete and abstract thinking.

An important implication for teachers arises out of this: the need to help such students through such a transitional stage into full formal operational thinking. An implication for researchers then arises as to finding techniques which help teachers to do this.

According to Biggs himself (personnel communication) he is more interested in improving teaching and learning within the more traditional university format. This does involve the teacher trying to raise the level at which the student is operating in that subject..

More development work seems to have been done on adults over all using Biggs's model. Nevertheless the potential for doing the same with Piaget's model is enormous. This is a task that urgently requires doing.

What are the implications for assessment and learning/writing techniques of the Piagetian and Biggsian traditions?

In the key undergraduate academic activity of essay writing, the SOLO criteria may provide a clearer model of the structure required for a 'good' essay. Boulton-Lewis (1999) argues that this is a particularly suitable tool for the assessment of essays. She (1995) also argues that the SOLO taxonomy can be used to develop students' thinking as well as to measure it.

Teachers utilising the Piagetian tradition would encourage students to think in an abstract way by setting questions which demand such thinking, for example 'critically discuss the concept of democracy.' On the other hand there are concrete operational and transitional students who cannot do this. They will require learning support in some form: from peers, tutors or learning support teachers similar to those provided in schools.

What are the implications for adult education and lifelong learning?

At this conference we are travelling from adult education to lifelong learning. Let us look at the implications of my journey for both.

What are the implications for adult education?

From a Piagetian perspective a great deal depends on the nature of the subject. If it is practical - such as pottery - students work at the concrete level. However if it is more language-based - such as philosophy- the abstract (formal operational) stage will be the ideal. If students are not at this stage, the teacher will need to try to find ways of helping them across the transition by challenging them with abstract questions related to their experiential learning. From a Biggsian perspective the SOLO outcomes may provide teachers with useful targets for achievement (if this is relevant). If the goal of the students is purely enjoyment, this is unnecessary. For factual subjects (such as local history) Biggs's concept of declarative knowledge (Table 3) is useful.

So is the procedural knowledge which allows manipulation of the facts. Conditional knowledge may be relevant to practical subjects such as cookery which involve using certain procedures under certain circumstances. Formal 2/ postformal is only relevant to more academic subjects such as philosophy.

What are the implications for lifelong learning?

In the context of lifelong learning I see various limitations to Piaget's ideas. Should we accept abstract thinking and knowledge as necessarily the ideal or goal of lifelong learning (or of adult education)? Piaget's weltaanschauung was very academic. His journey in terms of life experiences very limited, even though his mind was profound. He was the son of an academic who married one of his research fellows. His adult life was spent in 2 elite universities. In a way there was little input into his life other than abstract values. Therefore determining the philosophical nature of knowledge was a worthy lifetime ambition. I don't suppose he attended the SCUTREA conference. In adult education and lifelong learning we are often concerned with much more practical forms of knowledge: in adult education how to paint, how to speak Spanish or how to play badminton.

In lifelong learning we are concerned with ourselves and how we adjust to changes: often caused by biological clocks for example the end of child-bearing or the decline of faculties.

Piaget's was also a rather male-centred view, although he did use his daughters and other females in his original empirical work. His model is so abstract and theoretical that it is not often related to by females who may, like Gilligan (1982), be more interested in knowledge about and development of relationships.

Since he died in 1978 it has become fashionable to criticise Piaget. I haven't followed this trend, but nor have I remained an unreconstructed Piagetian.

I change direction

The direction of my Piagetian journey has reversed. When my focus was on children I viewed abstract thought as the pinnacle of intellectual development. Now that my focus is on lifelong learning I regard concrete thinking as also being very important and helpful to adults in particular situations.

On this phase of my journey I have been strongly influenced by the ideas of Labouvie-Vief (1980). She regarded it as often very helpful to apply abstract principles back into particular situations. She also pointed out that the circumstances of adult life are very different from those of adolescence. An adult needs to be convergent, rather than divergent: to make decisions, rather than to try things out.

'While the theme of youth is flexibility, the hallmark of adulthood is commitment and responsibility. Careers must be started, intimacy bonds formed, children raised. In short, in a world of a multitude of logical possibilities, one course of action must be adopted. This conscious commitment to one pathway and the deliberate disregard of other logical choices may mark the onset of adult cognitive maturity.' Of course many 'adults' do not commit themselves to any career, partner or children. Perhaps by so doing they remain Labouvie-Viefian perpetual adolescents.

Once a person leaves formal education, practical knowledge seems very helpful at later phases of their lives, particularly in old age. However, as Erikson (1982) pointed out, it is vital for older adults to have an adequate philosophy of life if they are to avoid despair. So the ability to think in an abstract way is still useful to them, particularly if it allows them to escape from their particular problems. Buddhism, for instance, may provide a valid philosophy for them. Biggs's model does not seem to have any particular relevance to lifelong learning. It was not conceived in that context, but in one of the assessment of formal work.

Where do I go now?

This is the story of my journey so far. Maybe my journey has reached an end: what Piaget called an equilibrium.

Maybe some of you think I should move in a completely different direction. Where I do go from here may depend on the discussion which follows.

References

Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Boulton-Lewis, G. (1999) 'Applying the SOLO Taxonomy to Learning in Higher Education' in Dart, B. and Boulton-Lewis, G. (eds) Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Melbourne: ACER.

Erikson, E. (1982) The Life Cycle Completed Norton.

Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980) 'Formal operations: Uses and limits of pure logic in life span development'. Human Development, 13, pp 141-61.

Sutherland, P (1992) Cognitive Development Today: Piaget and His Critics London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Sutherland, P (1999) 'The application of Piagetian and Neo- Piagetian ideas to further and higher education' International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18, 4, pp 286-294.