The intuitive and logical aspect of the preoperational child's thought is revealed most clearly in a set of tasks examining 'conservation'. In physics, the notion of conservation is that as one aspect of a situation changes, another stays the same (e.g. conservation of matter). Conservation tasks present children with very simple physics experiments to see if they understand this important logical principle. MEZIROW, J. (1978), "Perspective Transformation", Adult Education (USA) vol. XXVIII No 2 pp. 100-110.
Some examples of conservation experiments are
Conversation of Mass: Rolling the play dough (Piaget and Inhelder, 1956)
A series of children of pre-operational stage 2-6 yrs and concrete operations stage 6-12 yrs took part in a series of experiments. Pre-operational children were shown two balls of dough and asked which ball has more play dough. The Pre-operational child answered correctly. Then one of the balls was then rolled into a sausage shape. All of the pre-operational children said that the sausage has more clay than the ball. When the children aged 6-12 yrs (the concrete operations stage) are asked the same second question, they reply they have the same amount but that one’s just in a different shape.
This suggests that children older than 6 years are at the concrete operations stage of cognitive development. Piaget also investigated the conservation in relation to volume, weight, area, length and number. McGarrigle and Donaldson (1974 )
Conversation of Number: The two lines of counters (Piaget and Inhelder, 1956)
Two identical rows of identical counters were presented to child. The Child was asked whether both rows have the same number. Pre-operational children can answer this correctly. Then the Experimenter rearranges one row of counters by spreading them out or pushing them together. The Child is then asked the initial question again. Preoperational children say that the number of counters in the two rows is now different.
Conversation of Volume: The two ‘rice’ beakers (Piaget and Inhelder, 1956)
The Child is shown two identical beakers with the same amount of rice in each. The rice from one beaker is poured into a wider (or narrower) beaker. Child now says that there is less (or more) rice in the second beaker. The results of the number and volume tasks further support the view that younger children have yet to develop an understanding of conservation.
Piaget drew a number of conclusions:
a) To understand these situations is reliant on perception. The child believes due to a change in the appearance of the material then that must conclude that a change has occurred and must be different.
b) Only one aspect of the situation attracts thinking therefore the thought processes are centred. The child sees the difference in the length of clay or the level of rice without noticing simultaneous actions of the situation have occurred. Hughes, M. and Grieve, R. (1980)
c) The child centres its focus and thinking on physical states rather than transformations. The child doesn’t possess the cognitive competence to track the changes of the materials and makes an intuitive judgement based simply on how they appear 'now'.
d) The child lacks the irreversible thinking competence and the lack of appreciation that the material could return to its original state. Reversibility is a crucial aspect of the logical (operational) thought of later stages.
Egocentricity; The three mountains task (Piaget and Inhelder, 1972)
Children of pre-operational stage can only appreciate one perspective of a given situation because of egocentrism, that perspective solely being their own. Piaget devised the 'Three Mountains' task to test children's understanding of perspective.
A model of three mountains is presented to the child the child views from one side and is asked to choose out of four views illustrated on cards, of what a person would be able to see if they were stood on the opposite side of the mountains. The preoperational child chooses picture showing own view of model.
Piaget realised that this was a fundamental component of a child’s development and marked a turning point in the progression of cognitive competence. As it demarcates the logical and operational thought starting points. The perceptual world doesn’t feature in the operational world it conforms to physicals laws of transitivity and reversibility and is decentred to a point
However, as the material is physically present then the child can only make reference to it and this is the limitation of operational thought. This limitation will affect the child as they could make mistakes or become saturated in thought when asked to make a judgement over a hypothetical problem or an abstract situation.
So Piaget’s conclusions appear to support the evidence that we have so far seen regards to differing stages of a child cognitive development. The pre-operational younger children have yet to grasp the concept of conservation of mass, number or volume. There egocentricity. channels them to focus on their own perceptions. Conversely the older children perform much differently and confirm that they are at the concrete operations stage.
However, an increasing amount of evidence since the 1970s has challenged Piaget’s theory and that he may have underestimated a child’s abilities. We shall next consider a series of experiments that look at fresh evidence supporting the abilities of the pre-operational child,
Egocentricity; Hiding from the Policeman (Donaldson and Hughes, 1978)
Children were shown a board with two barriers with toy policeman placed at the end of each barrier. The rationale behind this experiment is to make human sense to the child. The child is then asked to place a doll in the layout as so the policeman cannot see her.
The majority of pre-operational children recognised the blind spot and the doll successfully eludes the policemen. They recognised and understood the perspective of the two policemen. These observations question the validity and reliability of the findings of Piaget. Although it could be that his experiments were harder or more complex for the child to understand and therefore the child fails to grasp the experimenters’ intention. So from the observations this experiment demonstrates that children become less egocentric and more cognitively competent adopting the differing viewpoints and perspectives of the two policemen and finding the blind spot in order to hide the little girl. A plausible explanation behind this experiment is the human sense attached to it making the behaviour of the little girl hiding from the policeman more understandable to the child.
Conservation of Number: Naughty Teddy (McGarrigle and Donaldson, 1974)
These two researchers revisited the conservation of number experiments and this time built in a reason that was understandable to a child for manipulating the counters. The same counters are placed but this time the experimenter uses agency of a ‘Naughty Teddy’ who performs the transformation of the counters (note the experimenter is totally divorced from the situation when the second question is asked) after the naughty Teddy has moved the counters the majority of children agree that there are the same number of counters just stretchier. This suggests that children deter meaning to the situation and apply a social schema the naughty Teddy moving the counters provides this.
Conservation of Volume: Chipped beaker (Light et al., 1979)
All of these experiments have built on our understanding of the child’s cognitive development and are seen as classic developmental tasks. Clearly the social context of a child’s understanding is deeply embedded. Children are able to offer a more appropriate response when the social context of the task as a more accessible meaning. Light, P. and Oates, J. (1990)
There are two identical beakers of rice, non-operational children are shown these, the child is asked which has more at that point the experimenter observes that one of the beakers is chipped and suggests that a third beaker be used, although a different shape much wider it will be safer. When asked if the beakers have the same amount more children state that the same amount exists. This suggests that the child understands the social context of the task and sees this as important. Adults according to children don’t do thinks with a reason reason (e.g. they wouldn't pour liquid from one place to another unless they wanted to change something; they wouldn't ask a question unless something had in fact changed). By providing a clear reason for making the change (e.g. the chipped beaker) this allows some children to concentrate more on the materials and de centres their ego. Light, P. H., Buckingham, N. and Robbins, H. (1979)
To summarize Piaget proposed that all children develop cognitive functions incrementally through an ordered sequence. The basic building blocks of development are dependent on children’s actions. Piaget also went on to argue that children are ego-centred and they tend to see mental representations of the world through their own perceptions and experiences. However in order to establish his theories, Piagets experiments have found to be in question. Undertaking certain experiments children have been able to operate at much higher levels commensurate to their age to what Paigets theory claims. As we have seen from the three latter experiments different results have been observed thus dissuading the argument of the stepped advancement of children. The fact that human sense and social context has to be perceived by children in order for the child to grasp its environment is key; the chipped beaker, naughty Teddy and the police evading dolly all made sense to the child and could adopt a schema in order to gather social context of the situation they were observing. Conversely if we change the beaker, move the counter there is no reasoning and the child cannot make the connection. Although Piaget believed that children pass through an ordered sequence of stages of cognitive development. Piaget has also been criticized for failing to recognise the importance of the social context of children’s cognitive activity. Oates, Wood and Grayson (2005)
References
Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds, London, Fontana.
Hughes, M. and Grieve, R. (1980) ‘On asking children bizarre questions’, First Language, vol. 1, pp. 149–60.
Light, P. and Oates, J. (1990) ‘The development of children’s understanding’, in Roth, I. (ed.) Introduction to Psychology, London, Erlbaum Associates/The Open University.
Light, P. H., Buckingham, N. and Robbins, H. (1979) ‘The conservation task as an interactional setting’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 49, pp. 304–10.
McGarrigle and Donaldson (1974 ) in The Open University (2006) Media Kit, ED209: Child Development DVD-ROM (Media Kit Part 1, Video Band 1), Milton Keynes, The Open University.
MEZIROW, J. (1978), "Perspective Transformation", Adult Education (USA) vol. XXVIII No 2 pp. 100-110
Oates, Wood and Grayson (2005) “Pyschological Development and Early Childhood” Theories Of Development Chapter 2 Milton Keynes, The Open University. pp 70.
Piaget, J. (1923/1926) The Language and Thought of the Child, London, Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1936/1955) The Child’s Construction of Reality, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
