Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking - Case Study Example

Analysis Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking: Analysis Referencing Piagets Theory Submission) Subject Analysis 2 I. Introduction This project will provide an analysis of experimentation, using two subjects, to provide detailed information regarding preoperational and concrete operational thinking and its relevance to Piagets theories in developmental psychology. The research portion of this work involves one child in the preoperational stage of development; the other in the concrete operational stage. This project describes methodology of testing methods, results of said testing, and a critical evaluation of all compiled research. Jean Piaget, a Swiss child psychologist noted for his studies of intellectual and cognitive development1, offered that as a child progresses in age, so does his cognitive ability in regards to perceiving the construct of the world around him. Piaget has offered four distinct levels of development including the Sensorimotor stage (age 0-2), Preoperational Stage (2-7), Concrete Operational (7-11), and Formal Operational (11+). The sensorimotor stage, indicative of infant and toddler perceptions, consists of the child learning to understand his environment by linking sensory information (sight, smell, etc.) to motor skills. Though not applicable to this projects study subjects, sensorimotor development is relevant to highlight the current developmental stages of the subjects. Preoperational development is the stage in which a child begins to represent the world with words, images, and drawings2. This level of cognitive growth is relevant to Subject 1, and represents a period in which a child moves towards higher cognitive abilities and can perceive images mentally rather than relying on sensorimotor skills to accomplish understanding. __________ 1"Definition of Piaget, Jean." Yahoo! Education. 24 Feb. 2006. . 2 Santrock, J. (2005). A topical approach to life-span development. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Higher Education, p. 225. Subject Analysis 3 The Concrete operational stage, relevant to Subject 2, and is characterised by an ability to perform a higher level of mental functions, including logical reasoning. This is a maturing ability to understand reasoning as related to operations involving concrete objects. The nature and procedures of the experiment will illustrate concrete operational skills in comparison to Subject 1 and 2. At age 11, a child begins to exhibit the skills involved in formal operations, and will develop more intensely as the child approaches adulthood. This stage, though removed from both subjects current development, will theoretically become the foundation for higher reasoning. Formal operations are the development of solidified, logical approaches to problem-solving and the ability to analyse abstract concepts. As this work will later suggest, Subject 2 may be exerting early signs of the transition from concrete operations to formal operations based on responses to the experimentation. This research project consists of three distinct tasks that have been distributed to both children of varying developmental learning. Each is designed to measure the childs response to the assessment materials and determine a relationship between Piagets theories and whether each childs observations fit the expectations of assumed cognitive development. II. Method All of the research in this project was conducted objectively, noting that neither child was instructed of the purpose of the project nor given insights into expected responses. Subject Analysis 4 Conservation tasks demonstrate a childs ability to perform concrete operations.3 As part of the concrete operational stage, conservation skills can be illustrated in a childs ability to recognise that even though an objects physical representation has been altered, it still retains the same qualities of its initial presentation. A more simple definition is that a child in the concrete operations stage can witness two identical amounts of liquid poured into containers of equal dimensions. The same child, watching one of the containers be poured directly into a taller, slimmer container, can recognize that the quantity of water has not changed due to transference. This is the basis of Conservation Task #1, which will be explained in detail. Subject 1, a junior kindergartner of age five, was the first subject exposed to Task #1. He is the youngest of his siblings, having a sister of 14 years old and a brother of eight. Subject 2, the brother of Subject 1 and eight years of age, also completed this same task. This task involved pouring an identical amount of juice into two clear glasses. The child was to indicate whether both glasses contained the same amount of liquid. Upon agreement of equal proportions, the researcher then poured one glass contents into a taller, thinner clear glass. The child was then to indicate whether the amount of juice in those two glasses was the same or if one has more. Should the child indicate that one glass contains more liquid, he was to justify the reason for that indication and was asked which, in his opinion, contained more juice. The purpose of Task #1 was to gather data on the childs responses to the __________ 3 Santrock, J. (2005), p.228 Subject Analysis 5 experiment and relate the findings to the two appropriate stages of Piagets theory of development: Preoperational and Concrete Development. This task was designed also to measure the extent to which each subject displayed conservation abilities. Task #2, another method in gathering data surrounding conservation skills, consisted of exposing both subjects to another experiment. In this task both children were shown two balls of clay. Both were questioned as to whether the balls were the same. Should they respond otherwise, the clay was to be adjusted until the subjects agreed they were identical. Next, one ball was rolled into a long, narrow shape, more attributed to that of a worm. The child was then to indicate whether both pieces of clay had the same amount or if one had more. Should the child respond they were not equal, he was to justify that opinion and indicate which had more. Classification skills, according to Piaget, involve a childs mental reasoning regarding the physical properties of an object. Seriation, another component of concrete operational children, deals with a childs ability to organize objects in terms of length. In classification experiments, a childs ability to sort or gather objects of similar design can be measured, as well as their determination as to how objects should be classified together. This is the basis for Task #3. Task #3, as performed by both subjects, was to present the child with cutouts of large and small circles, triangles, and squares. Each of these cutouts was of different colours, distinctly red, green, and blue. The child was then instructed to put together the objects that go together. After completion, the child is asked whether there is another way to sort the objects and does so according to the subjects opinion. Subject Analysis 6 Data from all three completed tasks has been compiled for review and analysis. Measuring the variables of each subjects responses to the tasks cannot be accomplished without an understanding of how each task relates to theories of cognitive development. The methodology to the research procedure is to create a connection (or lack thereof) to Piagets theories. III. Results * Subject 1 (5 years): Conservation of liquid task. Subject 1 witnessed the liquid from one of the identical glasses as it was poured into the taller, thinner glass. When questioned as to whether there was the same amount of liquid in each glass or whether one held more, Subject 1 responded that the taller glass held more liquid. When prompted to justify the response, Subject 1 responded that the taller one is bigger than the shorter one. Subject 2 (8 years) : Conservation of liquid task. Subject 2, after witnessing the juice being poured from one glass into the taller glass, spontaneously responded that the two glasses have the same amount of juice. When questioned as to why, Subject 2 stated that the different shape of glasses had nothing to do with the amount. He further added that the amount of juice poured from the shorter glass (into the taller glass) is the same and that no added amount of juice had been added to the taller glass. Subject 1: Conservation of matter task. Subject 1 agreed that the two balls of clay were identical. One ball was then rolled into a long, narrow shape and the child was then asked if the two balls had equal amounts of Subject Analysis 7 of clay or whether one had more. Subject 1 affirmed that one had more because it was longer and took up more space on the testing table. Subject 2: Conservation of matter task. Subject 2 was questioned as to whether the long, narrow shape and the circular ball of clay were identical. The Subject laughed and offered that "of course" the amounts were the same as there were no additional amounts of clay added to either mass. Subject 1: Classification of group task. Subject 1 was shown the differing shapes. The subject was asked to put together things that went together. The subject placed them into three categories: Grouped by colour, by shape, and by size. Subject 2: Classification of group task. Subject 2 arranged the shapes into four categories: Shapes, colours, sizes, and by presence of angles. One group with circles only, another with squares only, and triangles in another set. The subject was questioned as to how he viewed the angles. Response was that the circles consist of a continuous line with two ends connected together without the formation of angles. The subject further added that the squares have four sides, therefore four angles, and that triangles have three sides meaning they have three angles. *All photos available for reference in Appendix Section IV. Discussion Completion of the assessments allowed room for an expansion of inquiry into the relevant responses to the theories of Jean Piaget. Exploration into preoperational development has led the researcher to understand that Subject 1, the five year old child, Subject Analysis 8 exhibits a fundamental lack of conservation skills. According to Piaget, a child in the preoperational stage relies on centration, in which the child will focus on physical characteristics, omitting all other traits. This is most evident in the subjects responses to the conservation of liquid task and the conservation of matter task. In both assessments, the child is unable to recall any other characteristics of the action and can focus only on the altered dimensions of the assessment. To illustrate, in Task #1, Subject 1 was unable to recall that the liquid in the taller glass was still the same liquid from the smaller glass. The subjects display of centration was evident in his assessment, also, from Task #2. The child did not seem to realize that the longer, slimmer shape of clay was moulded from the previous ball. These two factors point towards the assumption that the child is currently well-established in the preoperational stage. Subject 2 displayed abilities in recollection as he realised that in both Task #1 and Task #1 no amount of liquid or clay had been given addition by adding subsequent amounts. This child displayed tendencies more theoretically geared towards the concrete operational stage as the subject was able to identify more than one characteristic of the tasks. Classification, a childs ability to reason about the properties of an object,4 and to categorise according to logical assessment, was displayed in differing proportions by each subject. Subject 1 was able to assess three specific categories in which the cutout shapes could be arranged, indicating a preoperational approach to relationships. The child was able to recognize only specific dimensions of classification, indicative of the subjects choices to group only by specific colours, sizes, and shapes. ___________ 4 Santrock, J. (2005), p. 230 Subject Analysis 9 Subject 2, however, demonstrated a more logical approach to Task #3, in his indication that there existed a fourth method for grouping that involved angle relationship. The child responded to the question of his reasoning method by indicating the dimensional relationship between the objects as justification for his fourth grouping. This may suggest a well-developed concrete operational method of thought, and could allow for the assumption of newly-developing formal operational thinking. Though Piaget mentions that formal operations arent usually expected until age 11, Subject 2 clearly expresses his intention for the fourth grouping in more abstract terminology. Further investigation into the levels of concrete operational skills in both children could not be solidified via the three tasks. In order to gauge transitivity, the recognition of differing lengths of objects as part of classification, another task utilising objects of differing length would have been required. However, the evidence suggests that Subject 1 is firmly rooted in preoperational cognitive development. Similarly, circumstances surrounding the nature of the responses from Subject 2 suggest that the child may be moving prematurely into formal operations. This, of course, would require further research. V. Conclusion Evaluating children can be a complex task and requires strict, undivided attention if accurate results are to be measured. This researcher has learned how to approach the psychological method with an unbiased approach and to examine, critically, the devices involved in the assessment of human subjects. Subject Analysis 10 Determination of the varying levels of childhood cognitive development involves a practical understanding of Piagets theories and sensible approaches to gathering appropriate data. In relation to Subject 1, the child displayed the expected attributes of a preoperational child which was evident in his responses. Subject 2, similarly, exhibited common, fundamental actions indicative of a concrete operational child, while offering an unexpected level of maturing logical thought that would not normally be witnessed in a child of eight years. It is the opinion of this researcher that, should Subject 1 be exposed to further testing methods designed to gauge conservation skills, that the subjects responses would most likely be similar to that of a preoperational child; regardless of method used. Subject 2, however, would be an interesting project for gathering further information on the emergent properties (and to what extent they are present in relation to specific test methods) of early formal operational thinking. However, in spite of any limitations of this project, Subject 2 clearly maintains a broader understanding of conservation and classification concepts as opposed to Subject 1. This is markedly apparent in the completion of all three tasks and by the more mature responses of the older child when questioned for justification of his opinion of the tasks. Critical analysis of the data collected consists of the primary data collection methods, the accuracy of the testers procedures, and a comparison study to the relevant displays of behaviour indicative of Piagets theories. This researcher has learned that, regardless of whether the subjects responses were expected or unexpected, an accurate study of the topic of childhood development begins with proper data collection. Subject Analysis 11 References "Definition of Piaget, Jean." Yahoo! Education. 24 Feb. 2006. . Santrock, J. (2005). A topical approach to life-span development. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Subject Analysis 12 Appendix Information concerning my research on two children The younger child : He is a boy . He is early 5 years old .He is in junior kindergarten He is the youngest boy in the family .he has one sister who is 14 years old and one brother who is early 8 years old. Theoretically Preoperational. Task 1: Liquid task: the child saw me pouring the liquid one of the two identical glasses into a taller ,thinner glass. I asked the child if the amount of juice is the same in both glasses or if one has more. The child thought that one has more: the taller and thinner one .I asked him why .he responded that because the taller one is bigger than the shorter one Task 2 : The child agreed that the two balls of clay are the same . I rolled on ball into a long ,narrow shape and I asked the child if the two balls have the same amounts of clay or on has more .the child thought that one has more because it is longer and it takes more space on the table. Task 3: I asked the child to put together things that go together .He put them in three categories: by color ,by shape and by size. The older one He is a boy .He is the brother of the youngest one .He is in Grade 2.He is early 8 years old. Theoretically Concrete Operational. Task 1: The child spontaneously told that the two glasses have the same amount of juice. When I asked him why ,he said that the different shape of glasses does not have any thing to do with the amount because the amount of juice poured from the shorter glass into the taller one is the same and that I did not add any amount of juice to the taller one .Therefore the two glasses have the same amount of juice. Task 2 The child laughed at me and said of course the two balls have the same amount of clay because you have just quizzed one and you did not add any amount of clay to any one of them. Task 3: He put the circles squares and triangles in four categories: by shapes ,by colors ,by sizes and the fourth category : by presence or absence of angles: circles in one set and squares and triangles in another set .I asked him how did you see the angles .He said that the circles have a continuous line that has two ends connected together without forming any angles and that the squares have four sides therefore four angles and triangles have three sides so they have three angles. Read More