Addressing the American
Problem by Modeling
Cognitive Development
Zachary Stein
Kurt Fischer
Harvard University
Graduated School of Education
The American Problem
When it comes to development...
...isn’t faster better?
..isn’t higher level functioning always
preferable?
Answers (to foreshadow): no, not necessarily.
The agenda
First: an introduction to the cognitive
developmental approach
Second: two sets of relevant
considerations, e.g. models and microdevelopment
Third: some general reflections
addressing the American Problem
Hierarchical organization of cognitive
architecture: philosophical epistemology
Kant
Sense-ability
Peirce
Index
Icon
Symbol
Reliable
differential
responsiveness
Cognitive
imagining
Symbol tied to
environment
Symbol-norm
Understanding
Reason
Sellars
Symbol science
Symbol-norm
science
Symbolphilosophical
Symbol-norm
philosophical
Hierarchical organization of cognitive
architecture: developmental psychology
Baldwin
Piaget
Fischer
Reflexes
Pre-logical
Sensori-motor
Actions
Pre-operational
Quasi-logical
Concrete
operational
Logical
Formal
operational
Extra-logical
Post-formal
operational
Representations
Abstractions
Principles
Dynamic Skill Theory
(Fischer 1980; 2006)
dynamic construction of hierarchies of
skills
universal skill scale of hierarchal
complexity
developmental web
developmental range
Model Building
(Fischer 2006; van Geert 1994)
dynamic systems models
skills as “growers”
connections between growers within
and between levels
Model Building
(Fischer 2006; van Geert 1994)
Two Growers in Connection at Same Level:
Simple Types of Nonhierarchical Feedback
Competition –
or Support +
SelfFeedback
SelfFeedback
Grower B
Grower A
Competition –
or Support +
Model Building
(Fischer 2006; van Geert 1994)
Connections in Hierarchical Growth
Grower B
Grower A
Level I
Key Connections
between Levels:
1. Prerequisite
2. Competition
3. Support
Competition –
or Support +
Prerequisite
Coordination
Grower C
Grower D
Level II
Skill Hierarchy:
Higher Level Skill Supports &
Competes with Lower Level Skill.
Model Building
(Fischer 2006; van Geert 1994)
Hierarchical Growth through 3 Levels
Grower B
Grower A
Level I
Coordination
Grower D
Grower C
Level II
Coordination
Grower E
Grower F
Level III
Model Building
(Fischer 2006; van Geert 1994)
Model for Korean Self-Understanding
Development of Self-in-Relationships in Seoul, Korea
6
5
6
Level A3
Optimal
Functional
Functional
Optimal
5
Level A2
4
4
MEAN
STEP
Level Rp4/A1
3
3
2
2
1
0
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
50
100
150
200
250
Events or Age
GRADE
Mean for 5 variables in H55 model: levels 2-3, Rate 0.1 Optimal, 0.03 Functional
27
26
300
The Piaget Effect
12
11
Attractor Effect:
Growers Approach
Optimal Level.
10
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
0
100
200
300
400
500
Events or Age
33
600
700
800
Note Spread
instead of
Attraction.
11
10
Grower 4
Grower 5
1
0
12
Grower 1
Grower 2
Grower 3
4
9
900
Lower
Final Level
8
7
6
5
4
Grower 1
BOOST
Grower 2
3
Grower 3
2
Grower 4
Grower 5
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
Trials
600
700
800
900
The Piaget Effect
a surprise!
12
11
Attractor Effect:
Growers Approach
Optimal Level.
10
9
8
7
6
5
Grower 1
4
Grower 2
Grower 3
Grower 4
Grower 5
3
2
1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Events or Age
33
12
Note Spread
instead of
Attraction.
11
10
9
Lower
Final Level
8
7
6
5
4
Grower 1
BOOST
Grower 2
3
Grower 3
2
Grower 4
Grower 5
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
Trials
34
600
700
800
900
early boost results in
disruption between skills
and lower level attainments
empirical data supports:
e.g. pathology as adaptive
development along distinct
pathways (Fischer et al 1997)
Micro-developmental data
Full Session: Working with Gadget
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
NiraGranott
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
INTERCHANGE
100 110 120 130 140
Micro-developmental data
Full Session: Working with Gadget
Summary
Start
7
Redo Gadget
6
5
Redo
4
3
2
1
0
10
Nira Granott
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
INTERCHANGE
100 110 120 130 140
Micro-developmental data
individuals do not usually function at the
highest level of which they are capable
novel problems require honing skills at
multiple levels, typically starting simple
and building up
developmental range and multi-level
flexibility
Micro-developmental data
multi-level flexibility has important
adaptive advantages
but it requires that emergent levels don’t fix
the nature of skills that have been
superseded / subsumed
we (humans) are not inflexible in this way,
but rather can move down and act to
refashion lower-level skills for higher-level
purposes
The American Problem
When it comes to development...
...isn’t faster better?
..isn’t higher level functioning always
preferable?
Addressing The American
Problem
When it comes to development...
...slow and steady wins
...multi-level flexibility is key
Addressing The American
Problem
When it comes to development...
...it appears that delaying transition of
control to higher levels and functioning
in a development range have adaptive
advantages...
Addressing The American
Problem
When it comes to development...
...delays avoid generalizations from
insufficient sampling
Addressing The American
Problem
When it comes to development...
...multi-level flexibility means having
control over a range of capabilities,
which separates sampling from
generailzation, allowing skills to be
crafted at multiple levels to fit unique
tasks