This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: nserve continuous
and discontinuous quantities. Children of indigenous peoples such as the
Aborigines in Australia (Dasen, 1974; De Lemos, 1969) and the Atayal in
Taiwan (Kohlberg, 1968) have also been found to conserve without any
The ages of attainment vary from one group to another, but the fact of this
attainment remains certain. Researchers who have studied deaf children (Furth,
1966), blind children (Hatwell, 1966), and children and adolescents with severe
mental retardation (Inhelder, 1943/1968) have also reported that these children
attain the conservation of continuous and discontinuous quantities. Logicomathematical knowledge is thus universal because there is nothing arbitrary in
it: 2 and 2 make 4 in every country. The words “one, two, three . . . ” are differ
ent from “uno, dos, tres . . .,” but the numerical ideas underlying these words
are universal. There are likewise more animals than dogs in every culture. If B
is larger than A, and C is larger than B, adults and older children in every part of
the world can also deduce that C is larger than A.
On the basis of Piaget’s research and theory, and its cross-cultural verifica
tion, I hypothesized in 1980 (Kamii, 1985) that if children construct their own
number concepts, they should be able to construct numerical relationships out
of these numbers that are in their heads. They should be able to invent arith
metic for themselves because all numbers are created by the repeated addition
of “one.” The idea of 5, for example, is (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1), and 5 + 3 is therefore (1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1)+(1 + 1 + 1).
This hypothesis was amply verified in 1980-81 and 1981-82 by Georgia
DeClark’s first graders (Kamii, 1985). It continues to be verified every year in
many other classrooms in the United States and abroad. THE IMPORTANCE OF A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATORY THEORY
For centuries, education has been an art based on opinions called “philoso
phies.” While education is still an art, it entered a scientific era when it embraced
behaviorism, associationism, and psychometric tests. Associationism is less rig
orous than behaviorism, but both grew out of empiricism, according to which
knowledge is acquired by internalization from the environment. Both scientifi
cally proved the importance of reinforcement, and both have been verified all
over the world. These scientific theories grew out of empiricist common sense 16 Theoretical Foundation and reinforced the commonsense belief that drill and reinforcement enhance
the internalization of knowledge.
Behaviorism and Piaget’s constructivism are both scientific theories that
have been verified all over the world. The question that must be answered is:
How can two scientific theories be so contradictory and both be true?
The answer to this question is that behaviorism and Piaget’s constructivism
are related in the way illustrated in Figure 1.5a. This figure shows that Piaget’s
theory can explain everything behaviorism can explain, but that the converse is
not true. As a biologist, Piaget (1967/1971) pointed out that all animals adapt to
reward and punishment, and that higher animals like dogs can anticipate the
appearance of meat when they hear a bell, for example. Piaget also explained
what behaviorists call “extinction” by saying that when the meat stops appear
ing, the dog stops anticipating its appearance.
While Piaget’s theory can thus explain everything behaviorism can explain,
behaviorism cannot explain children’s acquisition of knowledge in a broader,
deeper sense. Only Piaget’s theory can explain scientifically why children all over
the world become able to conserve quantities without a single lesson in conser
vation. Once children become able to conserve quantities solidly, no amount of
reinforcement can extinguish their logic....
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 03/13/2014.
- Spring '14
- The Land