Premium
General transferable ability: An interpretation of formal operational thinking
Author(s) -
Smith Leslie
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
british journal of developmental psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.062
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 2044-835X
pISSN - 0261-510X
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-835x.1986.tb01033.x
Subject(s) - psychology , interpretation (philosophy) , constraint (computer aided design) , cognition , cognitive psychology , thinking processes , epistemology , cognitive science , mathematics education , computer science , mechanical engineering , philosophy , neuroscience , engineering , statistical thinking , programming language
Inhelder & Piaget's (1955/1958) account of formal operational thinking has been interpreted as an account of general abilities which transfer on possession. An alternative interpretation is permissible. This is that the account identifies general, transferable abilities. The difference between actual and potential transfer is crucial. This interpretation is defended on theoretical grounds. Formal operational thinking is presented as a family of general abilities in three respects: the abilities are invariant to content, common to all individuals whose thinking attains the same developmental level, and powerful in a relative sense. One psychological consequence is that the process of acquiring such abilities is marked by a type of thinking consisting of the incomplete differentiation of abilities which are later integrated. Formal operational thinking is also presented as a family of abilities whose displays are subject to constraint. The analysis uses Piaget's constructivist research so as to identify six types of cognitive constraint with a relevance to formal operational thinking. One psychological consequence is that the non‐display of such thinking is taken to be due to the presence of constraint identified in Piaget's account. The preferred interpretation is, therefore, a candidate for psychological testing. Its theoretical adequacy is evaluated by its capacity to withstand psychological criticism that has been directed against the standard interpretation of Inhelder & Piaget's account.