CB>Piaget only studied his own children, probably a 
CB>very special group -
CB>at best his work is suitable for light reference - he tended to 
CB>assume the population of children were much like his own, which I 
CB>find to be very limiting to students.
 DT> I would have to assume this is a personal opinion since I have never 
Yup, my personal opinion. Although didn't he only study his own children?
Wouldn't that limit the results of his statements to general statements and 
only very general at best?
 
I noticed you quoted many references for me to look up - unfortunately the 
vast majority of educational research is very poorly done and statistics can 
be bent to prove almost anything. Right now I don't have time to research the 
particular references, but I will keep them for future reference.
 
 DT> Piaget is highly regarded and his views are widely accepted by early 
 DT> childhood educators and researchers.  His contribution to the 
 DT> understanding of how children learn and construct knowledge is 
 DT> _foundational_ and is both supported and expanded by subsequent 
 DT> researcher.  Piaget is referenced in nearly _every_ early childhood 
 DT> textbook and his ideas appear in many professional 
 DT> articles.  Hardly a 
 DT> light reference.
 DT> Piagetian yours,
When an educator says to me, "Well Piaget says--", I want to grab that 
teacher and ask them if they have any thought independent of Piaget! That is 
the reaction I got when I read his material.  
 
IMO, he deals with children in general statements covering a wide age 
range-however I don't view students as "fitting" into Piaget's ideas of what 
happens when and how they think. They are individuals, not little pieces of a 
puzzle. 
 
Yes, I know he is referenced in most educational textbooks-but that doesn't 
mean I have to agree with him.
 
Anti-Piagetian yours,
 
Carl
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------