PIAGET’STHEORY 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

• 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.

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

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)

McLeod, S. A. (2010). Concrete Operational Stage. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/concrete-operational.html

Difference between

Pre-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)

Concrete Operational• 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)

Piaget, J. (1941). The child’s conception of number (C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson, trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.

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.

• 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.

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.

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 Blank1 7.3 Yes Yes Yes

2 6.6 Yes Yes Yes

3 6.2 No No No

4 6.2 No No No

5 6.11 No No No

6 6.3 No No No

7 7.1 No Yes No

8 6.11 Yes Yes Yes

9 6.6 No No No

Results- Conservation of Liquid• Can students conserve?

Student Age Piaget Donaldson Rose and Blank1 7.3 No Yes Yes2 6.6 No No No

3 6.2 No No No

4 6.2 No No No

5 6.11 No No No

6 6.3 No No No

7 7.1 No No No

8 6.11 No Yes Yes9 6.6 No No No

Results in conclusion• Conservation of Number

• 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.

Conclusion

Piaget was right!• 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.

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.