Investigate whether or not there were differences between 3 year old and five-year-olds in conserving number.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not there were differences between 3 year old and five-year-olds in conserving number. The hypothesis was two tailed because the direction of the result could not be predicted. This study was a between subjects design because the age range was manipulated. The independent variable was the age group and the dependent variable was measuring their conservation skills. The experimental hypothesis was that there would be a significant difference between three and five year olds in conserving number. The sample was that of opportunity. The results showed that there was no significant association between the age of the children and the ability to conserve number. The overall conclusion of this study was that children still do not have the ability to conserve number.

Introduction

Piaget viewed the child as a ‘lone scientist’ who sought to understand the world and build knowledge of the external world through direct interaction. Piaget believed that cognitive development depended upon two factors, namely internal maturation and external stimulation. He regarded intelligence as a process, something, which changes overtime. It also represents an important means whereby human beings adapt to their changing environment. This process basically involves the individual attempting to construct an understanding of reality. Taking these factors into account, Piaget devised a four-stage theory of development spanning from birth to adolescence. The first stage was called the sensorimotor stage (0-2 yrs), secondly pre-operational (2-7 yrs), thirdly concrete operational (7-11 yrs) and lastly formal operational (11-15 yrs). These stages progress in an invariant sequence, the child moves systematically through each stage and advancement depends upon the mastery of the previous one. According to Piaget, these stages are universal although there may be cultural or environmental determinants, which may help or hinder development.

A main feature in the pre-operational stage is the notion of conservation, which Piaget defined as “the realisation that the quantitative attributes of an object (mass, weight, volume) remain consistent despite changes in physical appearance.” There are many different types of conservation namely, liquid, volume and number. Piaget stated that there is the same amount of liquid in container A and B, but when the contents of B are poured into container C (which is taller), even though the child had seen the transformation take place, they stated that there was more in container C. Therefore, Piaget concluded that the child does not have the ability to conserve, either liquid, weight or volume. More importance will be given to the conservation of number, which is the focus of this study. Piaget found that the child usually thought that there were more counters in A because B is ‘longer,’ simply because they were placed further apart, despite having the ability to count. Piaget devised many such experiments and repeatedly obtained the same results, therefore he concluded that similar to liquid, weight and volume, children in the pre-operational stage did not have the ability to conserve number either.

Porpodas (1987) provided an additional explanation to Piaget’s theory and felt that the inability to conserve could be explained in terms of the child forgetting he predicted that the experimenter might interfere with the child’s short-term memory. He used three conditions, the first one was the traditional, secondly he used one question and the last condition was a question with interference. He found that the interference task produced the worst performance. Consequently, he concluded that the inability to conserve could sometimes be related to interfering with the information stored in the short-term memory.

Another alternative to Piaget’s method was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another alternative to Piaget’s method was introduced by McGarrigle and Donaldson (1974) they used the Naughty Teddy in an attempt to overcome the problem of the children believing that they must change their answer when asked the second time round. Their procedure begins in the usual way, up to the point where the child agrees that there is an equal number of counters in the two rows. Then Naughty Teddy rearranges the counters and supposedly confuses the experimenter; this then allows the experimenter to ask the second question without inferring that a change of answer is required. However, Light et al (1979) criticised the Naughty Teddy technique for forming an additional distraction from the child concentrating on the transformation. Consequently, Light created an incidental condition whereby five and six years olds were tested in pairs. In the standard condition, they watched as two similar beakers were filled using pasta shells when the children said both were same, the experimenter transferred the contents into much larger beakers, the children were asked to judge once again. Results showed that 5% of the children conserved in the standard condition compared to 70% in the incidental condition. This shows that maybe Piaget underestimated a child’s ability to conserve but merely needed a bit more investigation.

This experiment is designed to answer whether or not children have the ability to conserve number. The type of conservation used in this experiment was that of number. The technique used in this experiment was similar to that of Light’s. Essentially, this study expanded on Piaget’s original work on conservation by comparing and contrasting the performance of three and five year olds. This particular age is used because it is believed that this is a crucial point in a child’s life, it also gives an indication of the child’s ability.

The experimental hypothesis was that there would be a significant difference between three and five year olds in conserving number.

Method

Participants

All participants used in this study were from Tots in Action (Private Nursery) Birmingham. There were a total of fourteen participants used, seven three year olds and seven five year olds. In the three-year-old condition, there were 3 females and 4 males. In the five-year-old condition, there were 4 females and 3 males. Participants were randomly chosen from the list who were given parental consent (see appendix 2). Children were neither rewarded nor punished and had a right to withdraw at any time.

Materials

Large colourful cubes were used in order to measure their number skills; these were used for safety reasons due to the age of the children. The results were recorded on paper, which had grids on it (see appendix 4 ) to see if the child got the right or wrong answer on different scales. Again, for the safety of the child, pencils were used to write the results down.

Design

This study was a between subjects design because the age range was manipulated. The independent variable was the age group and the dependent variable was measuring their conservation skills. The experimental hypothesis was that there would be a significant difference between three and five year olds in conserving number.

Procedure

Firstly, the cubes were set approximately 1 inch apart (A), with another line of cubes set 3 inches apart (B). Then the child was called randomly from the list who were given parental consent. Next the child was shown the cubes and was asked if there were more, less or the same amount of cubes in the first or second line. The child’s answer was recorded, then the experimenter moved B further apart until each cube was approximately 6 inches apart (C). The child was asked again if there were more, less or the same amount of cubes, the answer was recorded. Then the cubes were put back to their original places as the next child was called. This procedure was repeated fourteen times, once for each child.

Results

In reiteration, the independent variable was the age group and the dependent variable was measuring the child’s conservation skills.

Table 1 – To show the answers of both age groups in the two conditions.

FURTHER EVEN FURTHER

Table 2 – To show the observed and expected frequencies according to the chi-square test.

The data was measured on a nominal scale and each observation was independent from all other observations. Therefore, the data was analysed using a chi-square test of association between the age of children and the ability to conserve number.

(df = 5) = 2.06; p > 0.05)

According to this result then, we must accept the null hypothesis that there is no significant association between the age of the children and the ability to conserve number.

Discussion

Having analysed the results, with the df of 5, the critical value for an alpha value of 0.05 is 11.07 and because our figure was smaller than this, the result becomes non-significant. Consequently, there was no significant relationship between the age of children and their ability to conserve number. Hence the experimental hypothesis was rejected and the null hypothesis accepted. Compared to the 3 year old children, the 5 year olds conserved slightly better. Only 4 of the 3-year-olds got the right answer whereas 5 of the 5-year-olds answered correctly. Having said this, 3 year old tended to get more wrong answers. 8 of the 3-year-olds got the wrong answer, compared to only 5 wrong answers from the five-year-olds. This shows that there may be a slight difference between 3 and 5 year olds in conserving number, as 5-year-olds seemed to conserve better. Also during the experiment it was observed that, in the 3-year-old condition, 2 out of 7 children actually counted the blocks before answering. In contrast 5 out of 7 children counted before answering in the 5-year-old condition. The fact that those who did not count still got the right answer could be put down to the child simply guessing.

As the outcomes of psychological experiments are often subject to uncertainty, interpretation is required in order to find out whether or not there is an association between the independent variable and the dependant variable. Similarly, there could be many different reasons as to why these differences occurred. Although this study did not portray any significant gender differences, variances in gender must be taken into account. The environment a child grew up in could effect their ability to conserve. Factors such as the child’s parents financial position and educational status could effect the intelligence of a child. Due to lack of learning resources, the child’s education could suffer because they are not able to achieve their full potential. In addition, biological and innate elements could account for the differences between the ability for the child to be able to conserve. Some children may be predisposed with such genes, which may hinder their progress.

The results of this study agreed with Piaget’s views and conclusions. According to Piaget, the child did not posses the concept of the conservation of number. Similar to Piaget’s experiments and results, this study also found that there was no significant association between the child’s age and the ability to conserve. Conversely, this study refutes Light et al’s conclusion that maybe Piaget underestimated the child’s ability and stated that children can in fact conserve number.

In a psychological experiment there are many components which could have effected the results. Similarly, the sample size of this experiment could have led the results to be non-generalisable. The sample size was extremely small this could have effected the results negatively. Firstly it lacks validity and reliability because the results could not be generalised. Secondly, if more children were used there was more chance of the results being reliable. In addition, there were many methodological problems, which could have biased the results especially due to the fact that the participants were children. During the course of the experiment, it was noticed that the children tended to give the experimenter’s opinion rather than their own by imitating the experimenters words. For instance, when the child was asked if the cubes were the same, less or more, then they tended to answer ‘more’. Conversely, when these same three words were said in a different order, the child still tended to repeat the experimenter’s last word. A way of eliminating this problem could be by asking the child to write their response down. Alternatively, a computer could be used to lessen the interaction between the experimenter and child, in order to use these two methods. However, further investigation maybe required, as some children may not be able to read or write. Another, vital observation was made, some children, especially the three year olds tended to treat the experiment as a game. After one answer, they wanted to start playing with the cubes. This problem could be overcome by making the whole process a bit more interesting for the child. Other factors, which were not directly visible, were that firstly, children may not understand what is being asked of them to do, therefore their answer may reflect self-desirability. Secondly, children especially the three-year-olds, do not always realise the difference between real and make believe. Thirdly, adults may find it difficult to relate to children as their emotions and ways of thinking contrast. Fourthly, children should be relaxed, they might feel threatened at the slightest of things. In addition, children need an incentive or motive to do something for someone and are very easily influenced. A cognitive explanation of this is that children have short attention spans therefore get bored easily and want to do something else. Having said this though, problems like these exist in every experiment regardless of whether the participants are children. The sign of a true experiment is one, which devises new techniques to overcome the difficulties.

In conclusion, it can be said that the findings of these studies are in line with previous studies, specifically Piaget’s. Therefore according to this study results children still do not have the ability to conserve number.

GROSS, R. (1999). Page 751.