Conservation Tasks Used by Piaget, James Mc Garrigle and Margaret Donaldson - Essay Example

Running head: Conservation tasks used by Piaget, James Mc Garrigle and Margaret Donaldson Conservation tasks used by Piaget compared to those used by James McGarrigle and Margaret Donaldson Name: Student Ref: University: Course: Date: Abstract This study involved experimenting with children in the age group of 4-6 years using the exact procedure used by Jean Piaget and the one described by (McGarrigle and Donaldson, 1975). The study was undertaken to compare the tasks used by Piaget and McGarrigle and Donaldson to determine conservation in children in the afore mentioned age groups. The experimenters got two children each to participate in the classic conservation tasks as described by the above psychologists. The prediction was that the type of task would affect whether children are able to conserve or not. After analyzing the data using chi-square test the study seemed to support the null hypothesis that there were no significant differences between the conservation results of children completing the standard conservation task in comparison to those completing the experimental task. The results suggest that whether children conserve or not does not depend on either of the two tasks used but rather on their mastery of identity. Introduction. This study aims at exploring Piaget's Task on conservation in children and critically evaluating it in the light of the more recent procedure described by (McGarrigle and Donaldson, 1975). Conservation is defined as the realization that number of items, measure or length is not related to arrangement or look of the objects or items. An examle is when a child is presented with a glass full of water, will they be able to deduct that if that same water is transferred to a broader but plumper cup, then will it conserve the quantity and be the same Piaget argues that during the early childhood stage (below 6 years), children's ability to perform logical mental operations is inadequate. In his research, Piaget identified four stages in cognitive development namely; Sensorimotor stage (Infancy), Pre-operational stage(2-7 years), Concrete operational stage (7-11 years) and Formal operational stage (Adolescence through adulthood). Piaget asserts that in the pre-operational stage children are non-conservers for liquids and most likely for numbers Beyond this age group the children are able to conserve and classify adequately. Children in pre operational stage fail the the test of conservation because their thinking process does not comprehend the three principles of reversibility, compensation and identity. This has been interpreted to mean that before certain ages children are not able to perceive things in certain ways. The theories have found wide usage especially in developing school curricula, however other psychologists have disagreed with them. They have argued that conservation tasks do not necessarily reveal an essential limitation in the child's appreciation of quantity. Below are some of the arguments as to why children may fail to conserve: That the subjects may be distracted by the procedure. They may think that the experimenter wants them to answer in a certain way especially if the question is repeated. That the child may forget if the experimenter interfered with the information stored in Short Term Memory. Porpodas (1987). The children may not understand the relational terms. That the conservation task being artificial would normally make no sense to a child. Lenz (2003) argues that Piaget does not take into account matters of simplicity or complexity of the task and that if a task is simple enough the child may perform correctly but if complex, even an older child may make pre-operational mistakes. Indeed, in an effort to illustrate that children younger than in Piaget's typical age can conserve, many researchers have modified Piaget's original procedure. For instance McGarrigle and Donaldson (1975) assert that if the transformation is bought about accidentally then the number of 5-6 year olds conserving will go up. This study is to determine whether the outcome of the conservation task is influenced by procedure used (Standard piagetian or experimental), or it just depends on the age of the subject. The experiment requires careful planning in view of its sensitivity. This is because it involves children. Permission must be sought from the parents of the participants and the venue of the experiment identified. Since children are easily distracted, it is important that they familiarize with the apparatus before the start of the exercise. They also need to feel at ease. It is understood that the accuracy of the outcome depends to a great extent on preparation. The study will endeavor to determine whether using McGarrigle and Donaldson's conservation task results in more children conserving compared to using the standard piagetian procedure. In this study we predict that the task used will influence the result of whether the children are able to conserve or not. Methodology. Participants: The experiment was carried out with two participants. Both were girls aged four but had started school. One of the girls was outspoken and the other was exactly the opposite, i.e. quite reserved but seemingly not intimidated. They were both without any developmental abnormality and were from stable two parents families. When they entered the room, everything was already in place and the more outgoing girl wanted to pick the counters from the table but was talked her out of it. It was indicated to the mothers that they could stay and see but they chose not to. The two girls were good and the experiment took about five minutes. In the entire group, a total of 214 children took part in the experiments. There were 114 boys and a total of 100 girls all between the ages of 4-6 years. 55 boys and 52 girls participated in the standard piagetian task while 59 boy and 48 girls took the experimental task. The mean age for those who took the standard task was 5.1 and that of those who took the experimental task was 5.0. Participants were classified into two categories namely: conserving and non- conserving and the results were 118 to 96 for non-conserving and conserving respectively. Materials: The materials used for the standard task were eight blue counters and eight red ones. For the experimental task the materials were as above but a teddy was added and that was basically it. Procedure: Preparation was an important bit in the procedure. I identified the participants and reached out to their parents. Luckily they were friends. It was explained to the parents of the intentions to carry out the experiment with their children as participants. After getting consent a date was set and place (in one of the parents' living room). There was three days to prepare the apparatus and time was taken to do a pilot test with a 9-year old boy a day before the real experiment. On the material day the experimenter arrived at the venue early enough and set up counters on the coffee table before the children joined in. As agreed the mothers had told the children that it was a game and not a test. The experimenter sat on the floor and the children sat on small chairs. The set questions were then asked. They were both non-conserving. The girls helped pack the materials and thanked them for participating. That was the conclusion of the matter. Results. After compiling all the data from everyone in the group, the results were analyzed using chi-square test. The chi-square test was used, as the data generated was nominal in that participants were allocated to one of several categories (e.g. conserving/non-conserving). The results are shown in the form of a contingency table below which displays the number of participants in each category or 'cell.' Task Non-conserving Conserving Standard 56 51 107 Experimental 62 45 107 118 96 214 The chi-square test compares 'observed' frequencies (i.e. what we found) in each of the cells with 'expected' frequencies for each cell if the differences were due to chance (as predicted by the null hypothesis). If due to chance alone, then we would expect no significant differences between the cell frequencies. However, in this study we predict that the type of task will effect whether children are able to conserve or not. The results from the experiment were compared using a chi-square test. The results disproves the prediction that the kind of task affect conservation results of children completing the standard conservation task in comparison to those completing the experimental task (X2(df=1)=0.60, p>.05). Discussion. We had predicted that the type of task whether standard Piagetian or experimental would influence the conservation results. It was expected that using the procedure suggested by McGarrigle and Donaldson would result in a larger group of children conserving as opposed to those experimenting with standard Piagetian task. However from our results, we do not find support for this hypothesis. The results do not conclusively prove nor disprove Piaget's theory of conservation but seem to lend support to the assertion that the average age that a child can conserve number is approximately 6-7 years of age. Earlier research by McGarrigle and Donaldson had shown that the number of five and six year olds passing tests of conservation if the transformation is bought about accidentally would almost double. However, in our case this is not so. The discrepancy may have been caused by inexperience of the experimenters. For instance during my experiment, It was not clear whether the children truly understood the questions since questions had to be repeated up to three times before getting a response. This according to Rose & Blank (1974) may confuse the child. The children then seemed to think that there was an expected response and thus focused on that instead of thinking clearly about the questions asked. Many of the experimenters did not take sufficient time to make the participants feel at ease (breaking the ice) or even familiarize with the apparatus. It was noted that in the second experiment the child participating in the experimental task was distracted by the teddy when it was handed it to her as the procedure required. Therefore lack of familiarization caused distractions during the experiments. The quality of the data was thus compromised to an extent. The following are suggestions for modifications to the methodology. Utmost care must be taken in coming up with the words to be used in the questions. This is to ensure that the words used are easy for 4-6 years to understand so that the experimenter does not have to always repeat his/her questions. Constant repetition tends to confuse children and must be avoided at all costs. Mc Garrigle & Donaldson opined that children have difficulties with semiotics of comparators like 'more' and so such words should be substituted. Sufficient time ought to be taken by the experimenter to be with the children. This will make the children to be more free and at ease with the experimenter especially so if they are total strangers. Familiarization with the apparatus. Due to their nature, children will be distracted by just anything albeit for brief periods of time. It is therefore imperative that they should be allowed some time to explore the apparatus, hold and feel them so that they don't take their attention away while the experiment is in progress. The result shows that there is no difference in the outcome of the conservation tasks. This could bear that Piaget's deduction is accurate. That, children in pre-operational stage will perform poorly in conservation tasks because they haven't developed the level of thinking required. This is despite the fact that the tasks are modified or not. Past studies have suggested that Piaget's stage model is only a useful approximation, arguing that cognitive development takes place at different times in different spheres of knowledgesuch as logic, language, mathematics etc. and is not a concurrent occurrence as piaget puts it. It would be interesting to test Piaget's theories in specific cognitive faculties. Appendix. The results are shown in the form of a contingency table below which displays the number of participants in each category or 'cell.' Task Non-conserving Conserving Standard 56 51 107 Experimental 62 45 107 118 96 214 The chi-square test compares 'observed' frequencies (i.e. what we found) in each of the cells with 'expected' frequencies for each cell if the differences were due to chance (as predicted by the null hypothesis). If due to chance alone, then we would expect no significant differences between the cell frequencies. However, in this study we predict that the type of task will effect whether children are able to conserve or not. The value of X2 = (O-E)2 E To calculate the value of the chi-square statistic (X2) the following calculations were made: 1) Calculate expected frequencies for each cell by multiplying two marginal totals for each cell and dividing by total number of participants N. Cell1=118*107/214= 59 Cell 2= 96*107/214=48 Cell 3=118*107/214=59 Cell 4= 96*107/214=48 2) One then uses the formula (O-E)2 E O= observed frequencies, E= expected frequencies, and = sum the results of (O-E)2 for each cell E Cell1 = (56-59)2/59 = -32/59= 9/59=0.15 Cell 2=(51-48) 2/48=32/48=9/48=0.15 Cell 3 = (62-59) 2/59=32/59=9/59=0.15 Cell 4 = (45-48) 2/48=-32/48=9/48=0.15 =0.15+0.15+0.15+0.15=0.60 The level of significance depends on the degrees of freedom (df). The degrees of freedom can be calculated as number of rows in contingency table minus 1 multiplied by the number of columns in the contingency table minus1. In our contingency table there are two rows and two columns so the figure is 1, df=1. There are statistical tables which give critical values against which the observed value of X2 can be compared. If the value we have obtained (0.60) is equal to or greater than the critical value of 3.84 for p Read More