Piaget’s Stages of Development
1- sensorimotor(0-2) = children explore the world through their own senses, develop object permanence.
2- preoperational (2-7)= children show animism , reversibility and egocentrism.
3- concrete operational (7-11)= children understand decentration , seriation , linguistic humour and conservation.
4- formal operational (11+)= children can demonstrate abstract thinking. (hypothetical thinking)
=see pretty cows fly
Conservation
The understanding that something stays the same in quantity even though its appearance changes.
(e.g small wide cup of water is the same as tall thin cup)
Animism
The belief that inanimate objects have feelings and human characteristics. (preoperational stage)
Object Permanence
The understanding that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heared or otherwise sensed. (sensorimotor stage)
Decentration
Being able to concentrate on more than one thing at a time.
Assimilation and Accommodation (piaget)
As = when you update the same schema that you already had (e.g types of dogs). Ac = when you create a new schema for new information (e.g a cat schema and a dog schema).
Piaget’s THEORY criticisms
- Underestimating the age at which children can achieve different parts of the stages.
- Only 1/2 adults reach the formal operational stage.
- Describes different stages but doesn’t explain how they occur and what changes children’s thinking.
- Reductionist = doesn’t take into account teachers (too simplistic , each child is different).
who designed IQ tests and what do they measure, what do they stand for (3)
-measure memory, attention and problem solving skills (intelligence)
IQ = Intelligent Quotient
=Alfred Binet in 1905
Stages of Development (not piaget)
- prenatal (womb-0) —> embryo develops a neural tube after 16 days, which becomes the brain and spinal cord.
- childhood (0-12) —> at the age of 3, density of synapses in the prefrontal cortex is at its peak.
- adolescent (13-19) —> limbic system matures first, prefrontal cortex has not (explains risky teenage behaviour)
- adulthood (20-death) —-> ages of 25, prefrontal cortex fully matured, brain is full developed
Aim/Hyp of Piaget’s study into conservation
To identify the developmental stage at which children develop the skill of conservation.
Children in the concrete operational stage will be able to conserve, whereas children in pre operational stage will not
Procedure of Piaget’s study into conservation
Natural experiment where Swiss children aged 2-11 were shown, one at a time, two identical and parallel rows of counters. Researcher then spread then stretched out the row without moving or adding any counters . Children were asked on both occasions which of the two rows had more counters.
Criticisms of Piaget’s study into conservation
- low generalisability—> small sample of Swiss children, therefore unrepresentative of all children. Also, culturally biased, the ability of conservation could have been affected by education and upbringing.
- question bias —> how he asked questions. In normal situations child was asked twice if their first answer was incorrect. When experiment was repeated, only asked once - more kids got it right. Therefore his questions could have been implying a certain answer from children , leading to demand characteristics.
- Artificial —> task may have been confusing for the children and not meant very much to them. further ‘naughty teddy’ who comes along and messes up counters, made more kids in the pre operational stage able to conserve.
Sample of Piaget’s study into conservation
-children from Geneva, Switzerland in the preoperational and concrete operational stage (aged 2-11 yrs)
Conc/Findings of Piaget’s study into conservation
conc; children develop the skill of conservation in the concrete operational stage not the pre-operational stage.
find;
-children in pre-operational stage (2-7) said that the stretched row had more counters because it was longer
- however, some children near the end of the pre-operational stage (5-6) could state that they were not the same but could not explain why
- children in concrete operational stage (7-11) said that the rows had the same number of counters (they can conserve as they have learnt appearances can be deceiving)
Aim of Blackwell’s study
To investigate the relationship theory of intelligence and achievement and to test the impact of an academic intervention of this relation ship (to investigate if mindsets had an impact on maths results.)
Part 1: Blackwell (procedure and results)
- correlational field study
- collected math results from 373 students in NY
- completed a questionnaire about motivation in 7th grade, compared with math results collected through 6th-8th grade
-At the beginning of 7th grade there was no relationship between math tests and growth mindsets.
…HOWEVER, by eighth grade mindset was a predictor of math achievements. Students with growth mindsets showed greater improvements in math results than students with fixed mindsets.
Part 2: Blackwell
Procedure:
- correlational field study
- different secondary school ,99 students NY
- completed motivational questionnaire and took part in either the mindset workshop and how they are malleable (can change) or the control. (control = workshop on memory).
- Questionnaire was re-done and math teachers wrote down any changes in students.
Results:
- Participants in experimental group (malleable mindsets) had more positive mindsets than the control group, who had fixed mindsets.
- Participants in experimental group gained better grades on math than the control group.
Criticisms of Blackwell’s Study
- culturally biased —> results not representative of the whole of America so cannot be generalised to the population. Study only done in NYC which may have different education systems to other American schools/ other schools across the world. LOW CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
- reductionist —> only focuses on childrens’ mindsets which is only one aspect of their math education. The mindset of their teachers/parents could have affected the child’s learning (e.g if teachers have the belief that intelligence is not fixed this could reinforce the belief in the children).
- Study 2: experimental group received more anti-stereotyping training than control. By being taught that the terms ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ are stereotyping. This extra instruction could have affected the results as they may have had better class unity. = a cofounding variable.
- Because study 2 used independent measures the difference between the effort and achievements of students could be down to individual differences.
What did Piaget’s work lead to?
Key Stages
What did Dweck suggest teachers should not do?
- praise for achievement
- make assumptions about what a child is/isn’t capable of
Egocentrism
Children lack of empathy as they think everyone sees the world how they do - selfish = pre-operational
Reversibility
The ability to be able to think about things in reverse order. E.g if a ball of plasticine is squashed ,it can be changed back into a ball again. = concrete
Seriation
Ability and o be able to rank things in order (e.g coins in order of value)
=concrete
Linguistic Humour
Playing with words to create jokes or humour (concrete)
