Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

Play and Cognitive Development: Formal Operational Perspective

of Piaget’s Theory
Saghir Ahmad*
M.phil Scholar at Institute of Education & Research, University of the Punjab, Pakistan

Dr. Abid Hussain Ch

Prof. at Institute of Education & Research, University of the Punjab, Pakistan

Ayesha Batool
PhD Scholar at Institute of Education & Research, University of the Punjab, Pakistan

Khadija Sittar
PhD Scholar, Institute of Education & Research, University of the Punjab, Pakistan

Dr. Misbah Malik

Lecturer at University of Education, Lower Mall Campus, Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract
Cognitive development is the construction of thought processes, including remembering, problem solving and
decision making, from childhood through adolescence to adulthood. Play contributes to cognitive development
in a number of ways. It helps children to develop imaginary and memory which is essential for thinking about
past, present and future. The main purpose of the study was to find out the role of play regarding cognitive
development of children. This study was quantitative in nature. Survey method was used to collect data. A
sample of three hundred students was selected from both public and private sector schools of Lahore city. A five
point Likert scale was used to collect data. Mean, t-test, One Way ANOVA and percentages were applied to
analyze the data. The major finding of the study indicated that students feel curiosity to explore new things, new
ideas by play.
Keywords: Play, Cognitive development, Formal operational stage

1. Introduction
Cognitive improvement is the development of thought processes, including recalling, critical thinking and basic
leadership, from youth through youthfulness to adulthood. The assorted changes in feeling that happen over the
life range, in relationship with expanding physiological maturity (development) and experiences (Sternberg,
2003). Cognition incorporates each mental procedure that might be depicted as an affair of knowing (counting,
seeing, perceiving, considering, and thinking, as recognized from an ordeal of feeling or have will (Britannica,
2006). Psychological improvement concentrates on how kids learn and handle data. It is the improvement of the
reasoning and arranging frameworks of the psyche. It includes dialect, mental symbolism, considering, thinking,
critical thinking, and memory advancement. Play has a significant role in the development of a child’s creative
abilities. Hestenes and Carroll (2000) quoted that according to the vygotsky, play signals the beginning of
imagination and the ability to think creatively. Another element of early child Education (ECE) curriculum is art
activities. Art is considered a best way to enhance the cognitive abilities of young children (Jones, 2003).
Researches show that appropriate use of computer enhances creatively using appropriate software make
significant picks up in insight, nonverbal aptitudes, basic learning, long haul memory and complex being
(Johnson, 1999). There is also fixed time for story telling in which children are to read different story books. It
enhances the young children’s curiosity and exploration (Lanchester, 1990). All mentioned activities play a vital
role in the cognitive development of the students who are getting early child Education (ECE) experience by
enhancing their abilities.
A study was conducted in which investigated the presence and growth of Early child Education (ECE)
students met cognition as they engaged in the writing process, the students were found able to provide
appropriate answers to questions that required them to talk about thinking (Sandall, 2004).
According to Santrock (2005) Play exercises offer numerous open doors for controlling, investigating
and honing and are hence profoundly suggested as road for cultivating the intellectual skills of youthful kids. In
other words of Wood and Attfield (2005) many advocate of Early child Education (ECE) emphasize the
importance of play. Frobel through his gifts and occupations and Montessori, through her sensory materials, saw
children’s active participation with concrete influences contemporary thinking about the cognitive basis for play.
From piagetian perspective play is literally cognitive development. Through play children learn information and
acquire skills that are crucial to their cognitive development. The child who is playing on a water table may be

72
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

discovering some objects sink while others float. The one on the swing is exploring notion, gravity and safety.
The child who is playing with blocks is learning about colors, balance, depth and volume (Abott & Moylett
1999).
Play contributes to cognitive development in a number of ways. Play helps children to develop
imaginary and memory which are essential for thinking about past, present and future (Klein, Wirth, & Linas,
2003).
Play gives children opportunity to practice problem solving and decision making abilities, two
important elements of cognitive development. Play can have a significant role in the development of a child’s
creative abilities. The development of creativity is also related to cognitive development because creative
thinking contributes to problem solving. Through play, teen-agers learn how to cooperate with others, create
dialect aptitudes perceived and take care of issues, and find their human potential. To put it plainly, play helps
kids understand and discover their place on the earth. Most children’s cognitive skills increase rapidly during
formal operational stage. It is essential to remember that children of the same age may not have the same levels
of cognitive competence.

2. Literature Review
Play is the vital part, the vehicle by which youngsters impart, entertain, find out about their general surroundings,
comprehend themselves as well as other people, manage their-issues, and practice a portion of the abilities they
will use later on" (Harley, 1971).
"Play is that absorbing activity in which healthy young children participate with enthusiasm and
abandon" (Bergen, 2002). "Through play, children learn about cultural norms and expectations, discover the
workings of the world, and negotiate their way through their surroundings" (Klein, Wirth, & Linas, 2003). Play
helps children in cognitive development. As from above definition through play children learn about their
environment and through play they discover their world. They know about new things. Play has fundamental
means by which they learn new skills and management skills and also develop problem solving skills. Play also
helps children in cognitive development in a number of ways. It helps children in their imaginary and memory
which are essential in their thinking.
As adolescents play with materials, they have the chance to get things going or change things; in this
way, they encounter some control over their reality. Since they are in control when they play, they for the most
part pick materials and exercises for which they have a few abilities or interest, so they are relaxed. Their play
encounters are effective, so their certainty is improved (Brewer, 1995). Through play, kids interface with their
reality and the majority of its items, procedures, and occasions If you observe even the most youthful kid with an
obscure article you will see first the procedure of investigation touching, noticing, tasting, looking, and listening
took after by control of the articles. Play with articles, circumstances, forms, and different parts of their reality is
kids' method for social affair data and interfacing the new data with what they have beforehand experienced or
definitely know (Jones, 2003).
Here and there through enthusiastic physical play and infrequently through imagine play, children can
tell grown-ups what they are feeling. They will be unable to name or enlighten us regarding their apprehension
of creatures, however they can indicate it as they profess to be fierce beasts or to flee from the creatures.
Youngsters can't let us know that they're disappointed, however they can express it by slamming cymbals
together or playing an extremely bossy grown-up to their dolls. Play permits one to express the full extent of
feelings euphoria, delight, torment, disappointment, resentment, and invigoration (Santrock, 1990).
Researchers Hestenes and Carroll observed the play of twenty nine children with and without
incapacities in their classroom and on the play area to better comprehend the encounters of inclusive preschool
settings for children. Legislative mandates have required that children be placed in the least restrictive
environments, resulting in a huge increase in inclusive programs for children of all ages. Even though the
preschool children in the study had diverse levels of capacity, every kid occupied with the majority of the
different sorts of play accessible. Both gatherings of youngsters, those with inabilities and their regularly
creating peers, invested a greater amount of their energy in gross and fine engine play than in tangible or
sensational play.
In this study, instructor nearness was a huge indicator of kids' comprehensive collaborations. Former
research had proposed that educators could start and encourage play between ordinarily emerging youngsters and
toddlers with incapacities through their modeling and supervision. Although we need to understand better how
teacher interactions influence children's play in inclusive settings, this study and others make it clear that a
teacher's presence and support is a key factor in the frequency of inclusive interactions. It is a reminder that me
need to go beyond just placing children together; we must learn more about how to support them in inclusive
settings (Hestenes & Carroll, 2000).

73
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

2.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Jean Piaget's (1896-1980) background was in biology and intelligence testing. He worked at Alfred Binet's
experimental laboratory, where the first intelligence test was developed. While conducting intelligence "tests
with young children, Piaget became interested in the children's responses, particularly the wrong answers. The
pattern of incorrect responses seemed to correlate with the age of a child, which led to Piaget's hypothesis that
young children think in an entirely different way than older children and adults (Ginsburg & Opper, 1988).
Piaget's research on children's thinking led to his theory based on four phases of subjective
advancement, Sensorimotor 0-2 years, Preoperational 2-7 years, Concrete operational 7-11 years and Formal
Operational 11-15 years. In which a child ready to take care of conceptual issues in intelligent style. Turns out to
be more investigative in considering. Creates worries about social issues, character.
The formal operational stage, which shows up somewhere around 11 and 15 years old, is the fourth and
last Piagetian stage. In this stage, people move past solid encounters and think in dynamic and more consistent
ways. As a major aspect of speculation all the more uniquely, teenagers create pictures of perfect conditions.
They may consider what a perfect guardian resemble and contrast their folks with their optimal principles. They
start to engage conceivable outcomes for the future and are intrigued with what they can be. In taking care of
issues, formal operational masterminds are more efficient and use logical reasoning.
The conceptual nature of the immature's idea at the formal operational level is obvious in the young
verbal critical thinking capacity. Though the solid operational scholar needs to see the solid things to build up the
sensible requests. For Piaget the coming full circle accomplishment of intellectual improvement is the capacity
to utilize hypothetico-deductive thinking. Hypothetico-deductive thinking is the utilization of deductive
(thinking from general standards to specific conclusions) to deliberately control a few variables, test their
belongings methodicallly, and achieve right conclusions 'Piaget tried youths' creating utilization of hypothetico-
deductive thinking by utilizing a few assignments, large portions of which included material science or science
(Ginsburg & Opper, 1988; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969).
At formal operational stage, there is a significant achievement of this age group is concept acquisition.
'Woolfolk (1995) defines concepts as categories used to group similar events, ideas, objects, or people, and states
that "most of what we know about the world involved concepts and relationships among concepts. What is
significant about the achievement of concept acquisition is that children of this age are able to work with
abstractions (concepts). Concepts are vague and unlike the concrete learning that preschool children do so well.
So, children in kindergarten and primary grades begin to move from physical examples to an understanding of
complex concepts, such as numbers and time. Preschoolers often recite numbers and can count from 1 to 10 or
more, but it doesn't mean that they understand what 1 is or what 10 is. By age 6 or 7, children's understanding of
one-to-one correspondence and number is complete, but not until after age 8 are children reasonably accurate in
placing events in a time sequence (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Concept acquisition means that children are
moving beyond memorization to understanding. Gardner (1993) says that they then have the capacity to "take
knowledge, skills, and concepts and apply them appropriately in new situations".
Children's play, sometimes called work" by them, promotes development in all aspects of growth. Play
is the best context for children's learning and development in that it is open ended and free, children have control
over it, it can be done alone or with others, it can even occur without any materials or equipment, and it can take
place in many settings. Play comes naturally to children, so it makes sense that they learn from it. Through his
research, Piaget found that people's needs for creating order in their lives is a central drive Piaget, he called this
the drive for equilibrium, or a state of balance. To reach equilibrium, people have biological tendencies to
organize and adapt (Piaget, 1952).
Despite what might be expected Piaget asserted that we never achieve a lasting condition of balance. He
trusted that we are perpetually adjusting and rearranging our psychological structures and working "toward better
balance" Piaget did not, nonetheless, imagine further significant redesigns of subjective structure or the
improvement of subjectively more progressed or various types of thought (Piaget, 1985).

3. Objectives of the Study

This study was conducted by the following objectives to:
1. Find out the impact of play on the cognitive development
2. Find out the student’s perception regarding children’s cognitive development
3. Determine the effect of play on sharing skills

4. Research Method and Procedure

It was a descriptive research and Survey method was used in this study. Descriptive includes gathering
information with a specific end goal to test speculation or answer questions identifying with the present status of
the undertaking of the study. The population of the study was all the middle schools students of Lahore city.
Schools were randomly selected from towns of Lahore. Three hundred students were selected conveniently by

74
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

using convenient sampling technique. A five point Likert type scale was designed for assembling responses of
the selected sample.

4.1 Instrumentation
A self-developed questionnaire was used for identifying the role of play in the cognitive development at formal
operational stage. Questionnaire was consist of 20 items on the basis of four factors Memorization Ability,
Exploration Abilities, Understanding Abilities and Problem Solving Abilities of cognitive development. A five
point Likert type scale was designed for assembling responses of the selected sample.

5. Data analysis and Results

Statistical package of Social sciences, (SPSS 15) was used for entering data and subsequent statistical analysis.
Descriptive statistics, mean scores, standard deviation, and ANOVA and t-test in inferential statistics were
applied for analysis.
Table: 01
Sample Description of the Study on the Basis of age
Age Frequency Percent
8 to 10 58 19.3
10 to 12 167 55.7
12 to 15 74 24.7
Total 300 100.0
Table 4.1 describes that 19% of students were 8 to 10 year old 55% of students were 10 to 12 years old
and 24% of students were 12 to 15 in the sample. So it is concluded that the majority of the students were 10 to
12 years old.
Table: 2
Sample Description of the Study on the Basis of class
Class Frequency Percent
5th Class 98 32.7
6th Class 134 44.7
7th Class 68 22.7
Total 300 100.0
Table 4.2 shows that 32% respondents were 5th class, 44% respondents were 6th class and 22% were 7th
class in the sample. So it is concluded that the majority of the respondent were 6th class.
Table: 3
Sample Description of the Study on the Basis of play hours
Play Hours Frequency Percent
1 Hour 118 39.3
2 Hour 103 34.3
3 Hour 56 18.7
4 Hour 23 7.7
Total 300 100.0
Table 4.3 describes that 39% of students were play 1 Hour, 34% of students were play 2 hour, 18% of
students were play 3 hour and 7% of students were play 4 hours from the sample. So it is concluded that the
majority of the respondent were play 1 hour in a day.

75
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

Table: 4
Responses of Sample Students about Role of play in the cognitive development
Statements Mean SD
I remember any incident for a long time 3.94 1.448
I feel difficulty to learn historical lessons 2.86 1.472
I learn school work very soon 4.15 1.187
I remember my lesson just by lecture 3.75 1.249
I learn my lesson soon separately 4.05 1.327
I feel curiosity to explore new things 3.69 1.464
I have new ideas in my mind 3.92 1.331
I do not pay attention on new ideas 3.15 1.553
I try to explore new things by new ideas 3.94 1.331
I take help from friends to find new things 3.54 1.410
I understand my course easily 4.01 1.229
I understand easily with pictures 3.93 1.414
I take help of others to understand lessons 3.43 1.421
I need time to understand things 3.15 1.502
I try to understand closely my environment to participate in play 3.93 1.337
I try to control of any problem 4.01 1.349
I run away from problems 2.94 1.631
I confuse from problems 3.42 1.455
I feel relax after solve the problem 4.24 1.231
I always ready for problem solving 4.11 1.303
Table 4 shows that majority of the students showed maximum (mean = 4.24, SD = 1.231) I feel relax
after solve the problem and minimum (mean = 2.86, SD = 1.472) I feel difficulty to learn historical lessons.
Table: 5
Responses of Sample Students about Factors
Factors Mean Std. Deviation
Memorization Abilities 18.7533 4.43298
Exploration Abilities 18.2300 4.48451
Understanding Abilities 18.4500 4.56915
Problem Solving Abilities 18.7233 4.19987
Table 5 indicates that mean value for the memorization abilities (m = 18.7533, S.D = 4.43298),
exploration abilities (m = 18.2300, S.D = 4.48451), understanding abilities (m = 18.4500, S.D = 4.56915), and
problem solving abilities (m = 18.7233, S.D = 4.19987). It is concluded that the mean of Memorization Abilities
higher than the other factors.
Table: 6
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of age regarding memorization
abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Memorization Between Groups
124.420 3 41.473 2.134 .096
Abilities
Within Groups 5751.327 296 19.430
Total 5875.747 299
This table shows that F = 2.134, df = 3 and p = .096 there was not significance difference between
memorization abilities on the basis of their Age. In other words memorization abilities do not affect the role of
play in the cognitive development.
Table: 7
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of students age regarding exploration
abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Exploration Abilities Between Groups 51.691 3 17.230 .856 .465
Within Groups 5961.439 296 20.140
Total 6013.130 299
This table shows that F = .856, df = 3 and p = .465 there was not significance difference between
exploration abilities on the basis of their Age. In other words exploration abilities do not affect the role of play in
the cognitive development.

76
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

Table: 8
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of students age regarding
Understanding Abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Understanding Between Groups
50.164 3 16.721 .799 .495
Abilities
Within Groups 6192.086 296 20.919
Total 6242.250 299
This table shows that F = .799, df = 3 and p = .495 there was not significance difference between
understanding abilities on the basis of their Age. In other words understanding abilities do not affect the role of
play in the cognitive development.
Table: 9
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of students age regarding problem
solving abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Problem Solving Between Groups
93.077 3 31.026 1.773 .152
Abilities
Within Groups 5180.960 296 17.503
Total 5274.037 299
This table shows that F = 1.773, df = 3 and p = .152 there was not significance difference between
problem solving abilities on the basis of their Age. In other words problem solving abilities do not affect the role
of play in the cognitive development.
Table: 10
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of play duration regarding
Memorization Abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Memorization Between Groups
336.111 3 112.037 5.986 .001
Abilities
Within Groups 5539.635 296 18.715
Total 5875.747 299
This table shows that F = 5.986, df = 3 and p = .001 there was significance difference between
memorization abilities on the basis of their play duration. In other words memorization abilities do affect the role
of play in the cognitive development.
Table: 11
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of play duration regarding
Exploration Abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Exploration Abilities Between Groups 500.276 3 166.759 8.954 .000
Within Groups 5512.854 296 18.625
Total 6013.130 299
This table shows that F = 8.954, df = 3 and p = .000 there was significance difference between
exploration abilities on the basis of their play duration. In other words exploration abilities do affect the role of
play in the cognitive development.
Table: 12
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of play duration regarding
Understanding Abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Understanding Abilities Between Groups 174.632 3 58.211 2.840 .038
Within Groups 6067.618 296 20.499
Total 6242.250 299
This table shows that F = 2.840, df = 3 and p = .038 there was significance difference between
understanding abilities on the basis of their play duration. In other words understanding abilities do affect the
role of play in the cognitive development.

77
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

Table: 13
Comparison of Perception of the Students satisfaction’ on the Basis of play duration regarding Problem
solving Abilities.
Factor Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Problem Solving Abilities Between Groups 320.827 3 106.942 6.391 .000
Within Groups 4953.210 296 16.734
Total 5274.037 299
This table shows that F = 6.391, df = 3 and p = .000 there was significance difference between problem
solving abilities on the basis of their play duration. In other words problem solving abilities affect the role of
play in the cognitive development.

6. Conclusion
In light of the consequences of the study, it is inferred that there was not significance difference between
memorization abilities, exploration abilities, understanding abilities and problem solving abilities on the basis of
their Age of students. But there was significance difference between memorization abilities, exploration abilities,
understanding abilities, and problem solving abilities on the basis of their play duration. It means that those
students who give more time to play in a day, their abilities of cognitive development are enhanced rapidly due
to play duration and their achievements level is also high at formal operational stage. They think more logically
and solve the problem in better way than others. The consequences of the study likewise demonstrated that that
age factor of the students or children does not affect the role of play in the cognitive development. So, it’s
revealed that children of formal operational level enhance their cognitive thinking on the basis of play duration
not on the basis of their age factor. This thing also show the importance and value of play in daily life. The
unique nature of the immature's idea at the formal operational level is clear in the youthful's verbal critical
thinking capacity. In taking care of issues, formal operational scholars are more methodical and use consistent
thinking.

7. Recommendations
In the light of findings of study, following recommendations are being presented to improve the cognitive
development through play.
• Teachers should educate parents and caregivers about benefits and importance of play.
• Teachers should encourage the positive cognitive development aspects of students.
• Teachers should give free hands to make decision about play.
• Teachers should give importance to students’ opinion’s to select the play games.
• Students should do respect and give importance of teachers in a play field.
• School should provide all the material for play. There should be a balance between play and class work.
• School should take interest in different play and to develop cognitive development of students.
• Parents should give opinions and suggestions about play to improve the cognitive development.

References
Abbott, & Moylett, H. (1999). Early Education Transformed. New York: Falmer press.
Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early childhood research and
practice.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (2nd
ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young children.
Brewer, J. (1995), Introduction to early childhood education, united state, ALLYN and BACON.
Britannica, E. (2006). Fatally flawed. Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal
Nature.
Gardner, H. (1993a). Education the unschooled mind: A science and public policy seminary. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development (3rd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Harley, R. (1971). Play: The essential ingredient. Childhood education, 48(2), 80-84.
Hestenes, l., & Carroll, D. (2000). The play interaction young children with and without dis abilities.
Individually and environmental influences. Early childhood research Quarterly, 15(2), 229-246.
http://ecrp.uivc.edu/v4n1/bergan.html.
John son, J. E. (1999). Play and early childhood development. USA: Harper Collins.
Jones, E. (2003). Playing to get SMART Young children, 58(3), 32-35.
Klein, T. P., Wirth, & D linas, k. (2003). Play: children’s context for development. Young children, 58(3), 38-45.

78
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.28, 2016

Lanchester, J. (1990). Art in the primary school. New York: Chamanand Hall, Inc.
Pia Sandall, S. (2003). Play modification for children with disabilities. Young children, 58(3), 54-55
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the child. New York: Basic Bocks.
Piaget, J. (1985). Play, dreaws, and imitation in children. New York: Norton.
Sandall, S. (2003). Play modification for children with disabilities. Young children, 58(3), 54-55
Santrock , J.W. (1990). Children. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Santrock, J.W. (2005). A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development. Boston Burr Ridge: Mc Graw Hill.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press.
Wood, E, & Attfield, J. (2005). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum, London, P.C.P.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1995). Educational psychdogy (6th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

79