Piaget’s Theory of Conservation Lisa Saman

Jean William Fritz Piaget (1896-1980) Born in Neuchâtel, Switzerland on 9 August 1896 Died 16 September 1980 Began to study children in 1920 Studied behaviors of his own children Was interested in the “wrong” answers Studied the “wrong” answers that the children gave and he found that most children made the same mistakes. Based on this discovery, Piaget theorized that children’s thought processes are entirely different from the thought processes of adults.

At the age of ten, Piaget already showed promise to becoming a great scientist when he published an observation journal about sparrows His work has influenced many other theorists. any other research relating to cognitive development can be traced back to Piaget’s cognitive development theory His stages were not genetically determined. instead, his stages “represent increasingly comprehensive ways of thinking” (114-115) Crain, W. (2005). Piaget's Cognitive-Development Theory (pp. 112-150). In Theories of development: Concepts and applications (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Not genetically determined which means that children themselves are the ones who are constantly exploring, manipulating, and trying to make sense out of the environment, and in this process they actively construct new and more elaborative structures for dealing with the environment.

Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development Stage 1- Sensorimotor babies organize their physical action schemes, such as sucking, grasping, and hitting, for dealing with the immediate world Stage 2- Pre-Operational children learn to think – to use symbols and internal images – but their thinking is unsystematic and illogical Stage 3- Concrete Operational children develop the capacity to think systematically, but only when they can refer to concrete objects and activities Stage 4- Formal Operational young people develop the capacity to think systematically on a purely abstract and hypothetical plane Sensorimotor is from birth to the age of two. Pre-Operational stage is from age two to age seven. Concrete Operational stage is from age seven to age eleven. Formal Operations stage is from age eleven to adulthood. Since my presentation will be focusing on Piaget’s theory of conservation, the pre-operational stage and concrete operational stage will be focused on more than the other two stages.

Conservation “The understanding that something stays the same in quantity even though its appearance changes” Transition stage between Pre-Operational and Concrete Operational Stages Seven types of conservation: Number (age seven or eight), length (age eight), liquid (age of seven or eight), mass (age seven to eight), weight (age nine or ten), area (age ten or eleven), and volume (age eleven or twelve) Conservation is the transition phase in which children move from the pre-operational to the concrete operational stage. In his book The Psychology of the Child, Piaget mentions that the order in which the conservation types are listed is the said order in which children start conserving. In this book, he offers suggestions in which ages these specific conservation stages occur. McLeod, S. A. (2010). Concrete Operational Stage. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/concrete-operational.html

Difference between Pre-Operational Concrete Operational Reasoning for answer Centration (one dimensional ) “The child grasps that the two corresponding sets are equal only so long as the containers are equal. When one set is put into a container of a different shape, the two sets are no longer considered as equal” (28) Reasoning for answer Identity Compensation Inversion “the transformation, although the child is perfectly well aware of it, is not conceived as a reversible movement from one state to another, changing the form but leaving the quantity constant” (98) Concrete Operational: This quote describes what pre-operational children cannot do and so what concrete operational can do. At the age of seven and eight, a child can successfully reverse by inversion or compensate or revert by reciprocal relationship and see that the water poured into the new glass could just as easily be poured back into it original container and be the same since no water was added or taken away. Identity is when children realize that nothing was taken away or added and hence it must still be the same amount as started with. Compensation is when children state that the changes that happened balance each other out. Inversion is when a child argues that you could reverse the change to make it as it was before the change (pour the liquid back into the original glass or move the coins closer to each other again). Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). The “Concrete” Operations of Thought and Interpersonal Relations (pp. 92-99). In H. Weaver (Trans.), The psychology of the child. Piaget, J. (1941). The child’s conception of number (C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson, trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.

The Psychology of the Child- Piaget and Inhelder All conservations “that are at the pre-operatory level [show] the reactions are centered on perceptual or imagined configurations, while at the operatory levels the reactions are based on identity or reversibility by inversion or reciprocity” (p.99). Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). The “Concrete” Operations of Thought and Interpersonal Relations (pp. 92-99). In H. Weaver (Trans.), The psychology of the child.

Hypothesis I predict that Donaldson and Rose & Blank are correct in predicting that Piaget underestimated children and that the reason for this underestimation is the use of his wording in his experimentation. To test this, I will reexamine Donaldson and McGarrigle’s methods as well as Rose and Blank’s methods. The results of Piaget’s original experimentation will be compared to the results of the tests of Donaldson & McGarrigle and Rose & Blank. Demand characteristics- Cognitive Psychology to denote the situation where the results of an experiment are biased because the experimenters' expectancies regarding the performance of the participants on a particular task create an implicit demand for the participants to perform as expected.

Piaget’s Experiment- Conservation of Number Two rows of coins were shown to the child and the question “Which row has more- this one, this one, or are they the same?” was asked. One of the rows was then spread out The same question was asked again.

Piaget’s Experiment- Conservation of Liquid Two glasses of water were filled so they had the same amount of water in each glass and the question “Which glass has more- this one, this one, or are they the same?” was asked. One of the glasses was poured into a thinner glass The same question was asked again. (If the child said they were not the same, they were adjusted until they said they were the same)

Donaldson and McGarrigle Donaldson and McGarrigle demonstrate that when simple modifications, in language alone, are made to the experiment, children are able to conserve at ages below those predicted by Piaget. Making the tasks make sense to the child and using child-friendly language in order to make the task more understandable to the child, makes them more likely to be able to conserve according to Donaldson’s experiments. “the situation is more complicated than Piaget had supposed and that there are common sources of failure in conservation tests which his theory does not envisage” (206). Donaldson, M. (1982). Conservation: What is the question? British Journal of Psychology, 73, 199-207.

Donaldson’s Experiment A ‘Naughty Teddy’ was introduced in order to make the change in the rows of coins seem accidental McGarrigle and Donaldson created a test to make the account of conservation seem accidental rather than an experimenter purposefully changing something and then asking a question. Making the change seem accidental, a child is more likely to conserve. The hypothesis of the test was that: “if a ‘naughty teddy bear’ disarranged the array in order to ‘mess up the game’ children would produce more conserving responses than in the standard test’ (203). 1 The results were that 70% more children conserved using this method (20). 2 1. Donaldson, M. (1982). Conservation: What is the question? British Journal of Psychology, 73, 199-207. 2. Kefaloukos, Mary-Anne, & Bobis, Janette. (2011). Understanding conservation: A Playful Process. APMC, 16 (4). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ961654.pdf

Rose and Blank Rose and Blank “argued that Piaget had made a methodological error by imposing demand characteristics- when an adult deliberately changes something and asks the same question twice, children think that a different answer is expected, even though they may well be able to conserve” (143). Hill, G. (2001). The cognitive developmental approach to psychology (pp. 138-144). In A Level psychology through diagrams (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rose and Blank’s Experiment Rather than asking a child whether the two rows of coin or two glasses of water are the same before and after the changes have been made, the question: “Which one has more- this one, this one, or are they the same?” is only asked once. It is asked after the changes have taken place.

Experimentation Holy Family of Nazareth Catholic School 1st graders Ages of the children varied from 6.2 to 7.3 11 children 2 got sick after the first experimentation so the final results only have 9 children. Piaget’s test was done on Monday Donaldson’s test was done on Wednesday Rose and Blank’s test was done on Thursday

Results- Conservation of Number Can students conserve? Student Age Piaget Donaldson Rose and Blank 1 7.3 Yes 2 6.6 3 6.2 No 4 5 6.11 6 6.3 7 7.1 8 9

Results- Conservation of Liquid Can students conserve? Student Age Piaget Donaldson Rose and Blank 1 7.3 No Yes 2 6.6 3 6.2 4 5 6.11 6 6.3 7 7.1 8 9

Results in conclusion Conservation of Number Conservation of Liquid Using Donaldson’s method, only 1 child was able to conserve compared to Piaget’s method, which amounts in a 11.1% change. Using Rose and Blank’s method, there were no changes compared to Piaget’s method. Conservation of Liquid Using Donaldson’s method, only 2 children were able to conserve compared to Piaget’s method, which amounts in a 22.2% change. Using Rose and Blank’s method, those same 2 children were able to conserve amounting in a 22.2% change. The children who were able to conserve using either Donaldson or Rose and Blank’s method were all 6.11 or older.

Piaget was right! Conclusion Children can only conserve at the age of about seven years old. Though tests were done using other methods, the biggest percent in change was 22.2%

Limitations and Problems The small amount of children Short amount of time for testing When doing the Rose and Blank experiment (3rd time testing), about half of the students already told me the rows or glasses were the same before asking any questions. This is most likely because I did the Donaldson experiment with them the day before and they remembered the experiment too vividly. “You always do the same with us” – 1st grader Classroom setting which was a bit noisy at times and sometimes brought up distractions with other children looking on at what I was doing. Originally had 11 children, but two of them were sick when I went back for the second and third day of testing. Since I needed to get all my data in the time assigned, I did not have more time to space out the experiments, which might have influenced the results. The students remembered the experiment and questions that went along with it too well. Having more time and more space between the tests would have eliminated this, I think. Since I needed to have a ‘control’ (Piaget’s test) to compare the results of the students to I would at least have had to test the students twice. Maybe the order in which I tested them would have changed the results as well. While doing some of the experiments, other students of the class would walk by and look at the material that I had on the table and watch while the student would answer my questions (these were students that I was not testing on, so they were curious as to what I was doing).

Nature vs Nurture Rousseau Piaget Vygotsky Locke |_________________|______|______|________________| Nature Nurture

Bibliography Crain, W. (2005). Piaget's Cognitive-Development Theory (pp. 112-150). In Theories of development: Concepts and applications (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds: What Is Said and What Is Meant (pp.57- 74).New York: W.W. Norton, 1979. Donaldson, M. (1982). Conservation: What is the question? British Journal of Psychology, 73, 199-207. Hill, G. (2001). The cognitive developmental approach to psychology (pp. 138-144). In A Level psychology through diagrams (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kefaloukos, Mary-Anne, & Bobis, Janette. (2011). Understanding conservation: A Playful Process. APMC, 16 (4). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ961654.pdf McLeod, S. A. (2010). Concrete Operational Stage. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/concrete-operational.html Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). The “Concrete” Operations of Thought and Interpersonal Relations (pp. 92-99). In H. Weaver (Trans.), The psychology of the child. Piaget, J. (1941). The child’s conception of number (C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson, trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961. Rose, S., & Blank, M. (1974). The Potency of Context in Children's Cognition: An Illustration through Conservation. Child Development, 45, 499-502.