Search Forum:

The account of formal operational thought in GLT had as its target scientific knowledge [Galileo, Newton, etc]. The argument was that scientific knowledge is based on group theory [Galois], i.e. only someone who understands the latter in some appropriate way, can - can, not will thereby: others things are also required - understand the former. But group system is neither innately transmitted nor experientially acquired en bloc. Instead, the Genevans argued, it is constructed through a series of levels, one of which [an intermediary] is based on a grouping system, where a grouping is weaker than a group. Call this [A]. I regard this as a good argument in that if someone thinking fits [A], it is objective, rather than subjective, and that's an important property since human thinking is notoriously prone to subjectivity [aka pseudo-reasoning]. Your question assumes that the arts and social sciences has a counter-part such that an intermediate level of thinking in these disciplines is based on a grouping system, and a more advanced level of thinking on a group system. Call this [A*]. This is a hard question because [A*] is hard to apply, and no doubt this is why there is so little work on it. By all means try - as Trev Bond suggested -?Gouge and Yates (in Shayer & Adey, 2002). But the hard question remains as to how to apply [A*]. By the way, I made an attempt with Peter Knight to answer your question quite some time ago, but - quite honestly - we did not get very far: you are welcome to read Knight and Smith (1989), if you are interested. Knight, P. & Smith, L. (1989). In search of good practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 427 440. Shayer, M., and Adey, P. (2002). Learning intelligence. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. It might be objected [i] that most thinking in these disciplines does not require group theory, and further [ii] that most thinking in these areas requires instead different systems of thinking. Fair enough: I reckon both [i] and [ii] are valid and important. But note well: most is not all. Some thinking in these disciplines is based on group theory - for example, conditional reasoning from which valid deductions are drawn as opposed to valid inferences based on simple classifications/orderings. The way forward is to focus on paradigm cases and check out [A*] along the lines of [A].