Jean Piagets Theory of Cognitive Development - Essay Example

Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking ASSESSING PREOPERATIONAL & CONCRETE OPERATIONAL THINKING Assessing Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking in Two children YOUR NAME SCHOOL’S NAME PROFESSOR’S NAME SUBJECT e.g. Psychology 1210 Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 2 Introduction Intelligence connotes adaptive behavior to the environment and the organization and reorganization of thought and action. Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, has outlined some theoretical stages of cognitive development in children. It follows an increasingly adaptive behavior mechanism from diffused and more generalized responses to the organized and more logical patterns of behavior. The Sensorimotor stage, is from birth to two years. The child’s acquisition of knowledge is based on his physical and motor activity (Lutz & Huitt 2004). This is characterized by innate responses to stimulus which is essentially reflexive (S-R). The child learns to anticipate S and make R in anticipation of changes in S. For instance, in trying to reach for a dangling toy, the child makes adjustive steps or positions to reach it in the direction he finds most accessible. A bottle of milk is sucked at the end nipple which he has associated with the source of milk. The pre-operational thought period can be most understood by two concepts: Pre-conceptual stage (2-4 years) and Intuitive phase (4-7 years). During the pre-conceptual stage, the child starts to use different kinds of symbols in play behavior and in language. Wherein, play activities may take in the form of imaginary situations and objects. In the intuitive phase, the child is now able to respond to groups of objects. The child is able to classify objects’ size and shapes. There is now a finer distinction in specific concepts. The principles of reversibility and conservation are acquired. For instance, that the objects are not altered with change in the way they appear. The capacity for logic and reasoning are well-developed in the later stages with respect to concrete and specific objects. The child develops space concepts in the following Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 3 geometric order: first, nearness, separation, enclosure (Geoghegan et al 1963). There are two characteristics of in the child’s intuitive stage. 1) Egocentricism – the child’s inability to take the point of view of another and 2) Emphasis on successive states of a situation rather than transformations by which one state grades into another. This means that the child doesn’t have a grasp of the facts that the situation can change gradually and grade into a new one; he only emphasizes the beginning and end states. In the period of concrete operations, the child is less egocentric and is able to group objects and events on concrete observations. At this stage, the child is able to think on various concrete situations relating to problems they are trying to solve. The difference between the pre-operational and the concrete operational thinking lies not only on the child’s age, but also on the child’s behavior and way of thinking. Egocentricism is less evident at the concrete operational stage, while in the pre-operational, children are apparently less egocentric. The child’s inability to understand the concept by which one state can transform into another as it changes and grades into a new one; thus, no conservation of thought is present. While in the period of concrete operational thinking, conservation is present because children at this stage are able to reverse concrete operations and they also have the ability to relate objects in different situations. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how each of Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, particularly focusing on preoperational and concrete operational thinking, is manifested in children. By focusing on two age groups – 3 to 5 and 8 to 10 – of children as Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 4 subjects for an experiment, we will be able to understand more deeply the concepts of Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development among children of these age range. More importantly, this paper helps to hone writing skills as reports would be needed. The ability to record and write about the experiment itself would enhance the student’s understanding of the theories pertaining to Piaget’s cognitive development as well as the key concepts and processes. By way of conducting an experiment using human subjects such as children, the student is hoped to acknowledge the beauty and importance of such especially eh ethical practices which should be observed in such type of experiment; and lastly, this experiment aims to develop the student’s critical thinking and keen observation, skills which are needed to be able to understand the theories and conduct a credible research. Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 5 Method The method used for this study is Directed observation which is more specific and thorough than naturalistic observation; this method is also right for this particular experiment with children. As per instruction, I started creating the parents consent forms to be given to the children’s parents. This form allows me to subject these kids into an experiment. It also assures the welfare of the child. After having created the consent forms, I looked for children belonging to this particular age bracket: 3-5 and 8-10 years old. Having identified the subjects, I had conversations with parents to make them understand what my experiment is and also to give them assurance that their child will not be harmed. After which, I prepared the setting as well as the materials that will be used in the experiment. There are a total of two child subjects in this experiment, one from each age bracket: one three year old and one ten year old. Both of the child subjects were female. The three year old child is not yet in school, which means that she mostly stays at home with her parents and is only taught by stories, televisions, and also through question and answer as she gets curious by things and events each day. She draws information basically from her parents as well as the children she plays with. The ten year old child subject is currently a fifth grade student. In experimental observations, directed observation allows maximum control over values in the experiment such as the child’s response. It is crucial in this experiment that genuine response from the child is elicited to make the results credible, valid and worthy. Any manipulation that affects that child’s response would render the experiment futile. Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 6 This experiment has three tasks. Task 1 called the conservation of volume task. This experiment uses 2 glasses of different shape and a colored juice, which in this case was a red Kool aid. By pouring the juice into a stouter and shorter glass and pouring the same amount on the thinner and taller ones, the child is asked on whether each glass contains the same amount of water. The child’s observations is not only limited on identifying which glass hold the most amount of liquid, but also the child would be asked as to how he or she was able to come up with such observation. The second task is the Conservation of Area task. This task involves 2 sheets of the same paper and 6 blocks, of the same size; wherein the blocks will be used to cover areas on each paper, and then the child will be asked if both papers have the same uncovered space or area. Then, of course having answered the question, the child would be asked the question why to be able to know how the child perceives by way of his/her justification on his/her judgment. The third task is the Pictures task in which the child’s egocentrism will be measured. To perform this experiment, three sheets of heavy paper will be used wherein a picture of different objects will be pasted on each of the papers’ six sides. The paper will be then raised showing the child one side of the paper with a certain picture and the other side is facing the one conducting the experiment with a different picture. The child then will be asked to name or label the picture he or she sees and record the responses. The same method will be done on the two remaining papers. The actual step done in this particular task is, the child is exposed to three cards with pictures on both sides, wherein the sides are labeled A, for side A, and B for side B. side A is then shown to the child and they are asked what is on side B. The pictures on the cards are the Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 7 following: Card 1, side A has a picture of a car and side B has a picture of a carrot; Card 2, side A shows a picture of a firetruck and side B is that of a cat; Card 3, side A shows a picture of an apple and side B shows a picture of a dog. The setting of the experiment where in each of the child’s homes. Since the experiment was done in the child’s own “comfort zone” or the home, this ensures that the child is comfortable and ready, not to mention excited, during the experiment. Such emotional and psychological state ensures that whatever is the child’s response, it is authentic and free from any manipulation; because the only person present in the room is the child and the person conducting the experiment. All responses from task one to task three were properly recorded to ensure the authenticity of the children’s responses. Bearing in mind that glitches may come in the way while conducting the experiment, the student conducting it made sure that before the experiment started all the materials needed are already prepared and ready to ensure the smooth sailing of the experiment and also to sustain the level of energy and interest of the child. By doing so, this all the more strengthens the validity of the results. Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 8 Results Task I. Conservation of volume task: The three year old child said that the taller and thinner glass has more Kool-aid in it because the water looks higher than the other glass. As for the ten year old child, she said that both glasses had the same amount of Kool-aid because all she did was to pour that same water into another glass. Task II. Conservation of area task: The three year old child said that the one where the blocks were distributed all over the paper is now all together has less space left. She said this because according to her, all the spaces are smaller than the one with all the blocks together. While as for the ten year old child, she said the same space are left on both. There were no blocks removed nor added so the same space is left even though the blocks are moved around. Task III. Pictures Task: Card one, for the three year old child proved to be difficult for her in the sense that she didn’t know what was the picture on side b of card 1. All she knew that it is a different picture. For cards 2 and 3, apparently the child got it correctly. This is such an unexpected result for a three year old child. Her mother explains that the reason for her knowledge on this particular task is the pictures that were used. Stating that the child is extremely into animals such as cats and dogs and this might be the very reason why the task for identifying the pictures on cards 2 and 3 became an easy task for her. It should be noted that on card 1, there were no pictures of animals so the child had a harder time with it. Also, if a picture of a cat and dog were shown Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 9 instead, the child may have the tendency of not remembering the firetruck and the apple. The ten year old child got all the cards correctly. Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 10 Discussion The volume conservation task shows how each child of different ages perceives the volume of liquid in a particular container and also the way they understand as to why they perceive it in such a way. For the three year old child, the basis of her observation in simply on how the liquid occupied the glass. Since the liquid appears to fill up the glass, which is of course because of the glass’ shape and size, the child immediately makes a judgment solely on how high the liquid filled the glass, without consideration to the glass’ shape and size. The same observation can be made on tasks 2 and three, conservation of area task and pictures task respectively. Task one and task 2 almost have the same principle in which both tasks requires the child to understand how much or which one has the most or hold the most, whether it be liquid or space; and on both of these task, the child seem to be basing in on how she just sees it – only the physical aspect of the object – and not the other factors affecting it, like the glass and the blocks and size of paper for instance. Being a three year old, the child’s cognitive development is basically at the pre-operational though period wherein she couldn’t grasp and maintain a hold of that idea long enough to answer the question correctly. Although at this point, the child engages is symbolic plays and imitations, it is still more centered on itself, which means that in Task 1 and 2 the child only sees the physical arrangement and base her conclusion from there, the way she looks at it, without understanding as to why. In the third task, surprisingly the child got Cards 2 and 3 correctly. If we consider the mother’s explanation, about the child having so much interest on animals, it could be that her interest of this particular subject enabled her to remember the pictures clearly and pasted it in her mind. Knowing that children have impressive memory, the child could easily remember which picture of animal is on which card, as well as what animal was it. We could accept this type of explanation as basis on the success of the child on cards 2 and 3 in the third task because if you remember, the first card didn’t have any animal pictures is it, which is probably the reason why the child didn’t get it right. The fifth grade subject, who is a ten-year old girl got all the tasks correctly and was able to logically supported her understanding as to why she came up with such an observation. As she explained on the first task, both glasses have the same amount of liquid because she just poured the liquid into another glass, which is in this case taller and thinner than the other one. As expected, the child of this age, being in the period of concrete operations according to Jean Piaget’s theory, is less egocentric. This means, that since the child is not so self-centered as compared when she was still a toddler, the child has the ability to see things in a different perspective, with the ability of storing the previous observation, thus, the child can decipher whether or not two objects are of equal amounts or space; in connection with Task 1 and 2. The same observation can also be made in Task 3 which is supposed to measure how egocentric the child is. Since the child already has the ability to “conserve” ideas or previous observations, the child is able to reverse concrete operations. This means that they are able to view things in different perspectives and less of themselves. Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 11 Conclusion The tests administered on each child are basically the same with the same procedures and materials used. Although each child subjected to the experiment differ widely in age (since there is a gap of 7 years between the subjects), the results proved to be an interesting one, nonetheless. Pre-operational period and the period of concrete operations describe the child in different ways as far as their cognitive development is concerned. In conducting the experiment, I became fully aware of the importance and sensitivity of handling human subjects in an experiment. Although the entire activity could be like that of play time, still the same precaution is necessary. Based on the readings that I’ve had on Piaget’s cognitive theories, the experiment which I have conducted revealed a new thought for me. True, this study is neither to prove nor reject Piaget’s theories on which I have no intention of doing so, I have learned something that is very interesting and I think should be considered. My observations on this matter based on the readings and results of my experiments, that older children, specifically those who are in school, are indeed capable of perceiving things at a deeper level compared to younger ones. Their knowledge of fact which is basically taken from their studies, enables them to further take the task into a deeper level. Their cognitive development at the state of concrete operations is based on their brain’s ability to comprehend things in particular situations as brought about also by what they have learned in school. Should the child have not entered school even at this age, could the results still be the same? Task 1 and 2 has proved to be a more superficial thing for the three-year old child as she only sees the physical aspect of the objects in the experiment without thinking deeper. They take the object as what it is; but for the third task which uses pictures, the child remarkably seem to get 2 out of the 3 cards correctly, even if she haven’t entered school yet. This last task is to measure how egocentric the child is. The child’s ability to name the pictures on the last two cards was due to her interest in animals, just like what her mother explained. The mother’s observation is highly logical because in the first card, wherein there were no pictures of animals, the child wasn’t able to get it right. This could mean, that the child’s interest enables her to learn a lot about a particular subject, in this case are animals, and in doing so, can be less egocentric because she can take the point of view of another. Her knowledge gives her the capability to “remember” the pictures pasted on cards 2 and 3. With these findings and interesting observations, my final thought on the matter which is also my conclusion, is that children even those identified to belong in the pre-operational stage can be less egocentric when their interests on certain subjects or topics come in because they will be motivated to know about it and learn. Thus when asked a question with regards to that particular topic, as in Task 3, they will be able to get it right. On the other hand, children whose ages belong to the concrete operational stage are able to manifest their cognitive development well, not only because of maturation, but also because of their schooling. They are already in the stage where they are given a lot of inputs and stimuli which develops their cognition more. Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 12 Glossary of Terms Authenticity : the quality or state of being authentic or genuine; reliability. Cognition : the process of knowing or perceiving. Connote : to suggest or convey in addition to the explicit, or denoted meaning. Conserve : to keep from being damaged, loss or wasted. Credible : something that is worthy to be believed in or worthy of trust. Decipher : to make out the meaning of. Egocentrism or Egocentric : viewing everything in relation to oneself; self-centered. Futile : that which fails completely of the desired end or is incapable of producing any results. Learning : acquisition of any relatively permanent change in behavior as a result of practice or experience. Process of acquiring responses as a result of special practice. Manipulation : artful management or control, as by shrewd use of influence, especially in an unfair or fraudulent way. Observation Perceive : to grasp mentally, take note of, recognize, observe. Perception : the awareness of objects or data through the medium of the senses. Principle : a working hypothesis or a maxim for conduct or for scientific Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 13 investigation. Response : any muscular or glandular process which is elicited by a stimulus. Stimulus / Stimuli (plural) : any change in physical energy that activates a receptor. Subject : someone or something made to undergo a treatment or an experiment. Validity : a characteristic of a proposition, logical argument etc., that is founded on truth or is consistent with law or fact. Preoperational and Concrete Operational Thinking 14 References Geoghegan, B. et al (1963). “Developmental Psychology.” Bruce Publication Co.: Milwaukee Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences,9(1), 67-90. Hundert, E.M. (1989). "The Childs Construction of Reality." Philosophy, Psychiatry & Neuroscience Three Approaches to the Mind. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198248962 Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. College Edition. 1978 Read More