Development of Hierarchal Complexity and Relationship to the Traditional Stage Theory The traditional stage theory is the idea that an action’s complexity is determined by how frequently specific sub actions occur. This differs from the theory of hierarchal complexity, as the complexity of an action here is determined by the nonarbitrary organization of sub actions. In other words, the primary difference is that TST counts repeated sub actions, whereas THC organizes sub actions. The traditional stage theory was unsatisfying to Commons and Richards , as they felt it did not show the existence of the stages more than describing sequential changes in human behavior. This led them to create a list of two concepts they felt a successful developmental theory should address. The two ideas they wanted to study were (1) the hierarchical complexity of the task to be solved and (2) the psychology, sociology, and anthropology of the task performance (and the development of the performance). Relationship with Piaget's theory The hierarchal complexity model builds directly on both Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s theories. Because of this, it is considered by many to be neo-Piagetian, as it supposes the Piagetian model is correct, but that there are several stages above it that a normal human adult achieves (which are explained and described in the theory of hierarchal complexity). There are some commonalities between the Piagetian and Commons' notions of stage and many more things that are different. In both , one finds: Higher-order actions defined in terms of lower-order actions. This forces the hierarchical nature of the relations and makes the higher-order tasks include the lower ones and requires that lower-order actions are hierarchically contained within the relative definitions of the higher-order tasks. Higher-order of complexity actions organize those lower-order actions. This makes them more powerful. Lower-order actions are organized by the actions with a higher order of complexity, i.e., the more complex tasks. What Commons et al. (1998) have added includes: Higher order of complexity actions organize those lower-order actions in a non-arbitrary way.
 Previous stage theories were unsatisfying to Commons and Richards because the theories did not show the existence of the stages more than describing sequential changes in human behavior. This led them to create a list of two concepts they felt a successful developmental theory should address. The two ideas they wanted to study were (1) the hierarchical complexity of the task to be solved and (2) the psychology, sociology, and anthropology of the task performance (and the development of the performance). Relationship with Piaget's theory The MHC builds on Piagetian theory but differs from it in many ways; notably the MHC has additional higher stages. In both theories , one finds: Higher-order actions defined in terms of lower-order actions. This forces the hierarchical nature of the relations and makes the higher-order tasks include the lower ones and requires that lower-order actions are hierarchically contained within the relative definitions of the higher-order tasks. Higher-order of complexity actions organize those lower-order actions. This makes them more powerful. Lower-order actions are organized by the actions with a higher order of complexity, i.e., the more complex tasks. What Commons et al. (1998) have added includes: Higher-order-of-complexity actions organize those lower-order actions in a non-arbitrary way.
D
Development of Hierarchal Complexity and Relationship to the Traditional Stage Theory The traditional stage theory is the idea that an action’s complexity is determined by how frequently specific sub actions occur. This differs from the theory of hierarchal complexity, as the complexity of an action here is determined by the nonarbitrary organization of sub actions. In other words, the primary difference is that TST counts repeated sub actions, whereas THC organizes sub actions.
R
The traditional stage theory was
Previous stage theories were
R
, as they felt it
because the theories
D
hierarchal complexity model builds directly on both Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s theories. Because of this, it is considered by many to be neo-Piagetian, as it supposes the Piagetian model is correct, but that there are several stages above it that a normal human adult achieves (which are explained and described in the theory of hierarchal complexity).
R
There are some commonalities between the Piagetian and Commons' notions of stage and many more things that are different. In both
MHC builds on Piagetian theory but differs from it in many ways; notably the MHC has additional higher stages. In both theories
R
Higher order of complexity
Higher-order-of-complexity