Piaget and the Concrete-Operational Period - Assignment Example

Piaget and the Concrete-Operational Period Play: Quantity and shape attribution As explained by John Piaget in his Cognitive development theory, growth of children happens through four distinct and dependent stages. The stages include sensorimotor stage, preoperational stage, concrete operational stage and formal operational stage (Fast, 1992). Psychologists can use the stages to determine or predict level of intelligence and maturity in any child in any of the listed stages. Each stage happens occurs at different times and are usually successive through growth with sensorimotor stage being the initial and formal operational stage being the final as per the analysis of Cognitive Development theory. The concrete operational stage, which is the element of focus, begins from seven and ends at around eleven years. It involves integration from preoperational stage and children in this stage are able to apply logical reasoning based on principles of conservation (Flavell, 1994). Beyond concrete operational stage, a child is able o apply deductive techniques in reasoning and solving seemingly complex problems (Garcia & Nanez, 2011). The following is a play to elaborate the concept of concrete operational period and involves four children (Adam, Isaac, Norah and Cynthia). Adam is six years eight months, Norah is seven years, Isaac is ten and Cynthia is 11 years. The mission of the play to investigate how the children being at different ages will determine or explain changes in quantity of sugar poured in three different containers using one standard measuring container. An adult named James is going to guide the children through the play and ask questions as well as record observations. Play (James uses a cylindrical container of one kilogram, 10 centimeter diameter and 30 centimeters height to scoops a kilogram of sugar and pour in the three containers. The first container is cylindrical, 30 centimeters high and 40 centimeters diameter. The second container is cube and measures 20 centimeters length, 20 centimeters wide and 20 centimeters height. The container is also cylindrical in shape and measures 60 centimeters height, and 5 centimeters diameter. Transfer of the sugar is such that all the contents of the scooping container fit into each of the three containers. James ensures that each child is attentive and observes the distribution process. James then asks each child to comment by showing container with most and least quantities, and explain their observations). James: Adam, which among the three containers holds greatest quantity of sugar. Adam: the third container holds the greatest quantity of sugar, followed by the second and then the first container. James: What informs your observation and perhaps the categorization? Adam: The third container is taller than the rest and capable of holding more sugar. In addition, the sugar has filled it near to the brim. The has more sugar than the first considering that it is almost full while the contents of the first are down at the base. James (asking Norah): Which container among the three holds more sugar? Norah: (just two months into his seventh birthday): the second and the third containers have more sugar than the first container. With respect to the heights and sizes of the containers, someone can say that the second and third containers have more sugar. However, there is possibility that the contents are the same in quantity in both the second and third container. James: Why do you think that the third and the second containers hold contents of nearly equal quantities? Norah: even though I am not sure, the answer could relate to the scooping container that was full as each scooping and the contents transferred wholly into the containers. Apparently, something might have happened to the containers but the contents are likely to be of same quantity. Adam: Ok, I can see where I messed. Norah knows better and I agree with her reasoning. James (smiling and appreciating the argument given by Norah). Thank you Norah, now let us hear from Isaac. Isaac: I think that all the three containers have same quantities of sugar. The only difference that can challenge a person is the variation in shapes and dimensions of the containers. James: Why do you think that there is no difference in quantity of the sugar in each container despite the differences in heights that could make some containers seems to have greater quantities? Isaac: To begin with, we used same scooping container to scoop amount of sugar that reached the brim at each time of scooping and transferring. As such, the variation in shape of the containers may deceive somebody to view bigger containers with greater heights as holding greater quantities of sugar. James: Thank you Isaac for your explanation, it is great. Now we are going to hear final observation from Cynthia and close the play. Cynthia you can take over and explain your observation. Norah (seeking attention of James): I have realized that I was not far from such a detailed explanation from Isaac. This must be the correct way to argue. Cynthia: I support Isaac that the quantities of sugar in the three containers are equal. The only variation is the shapes and dimensions of the containers that may deceive someone employing shallow observation and analysis (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2013). The volume of the scooping container did not change at every scooping and the contents transferred in each container have to be the same. (Wanting to continue with detailed explanation but stopped by James). Adam, Norah and Isaac (collectively): Great! Cynthia you have a lot of knowledge and we wish that we become like you. James: Thank you Cynthia that was a great explanation. Isaac also did great. We must also appreciate Norah and Adam for they led us into reasoning out until we found real explanation. Besides, Adam and Norah are younger than you are and may not be able to see the details at their ages. However, I am sure you noticed the improvement in explanation with increase in your ages. Thank you all and God bless you for engaging in the play. (Each is given a loaf of bread and butter). Conclusion From the play, it is clear that the level of details given by each participant varied with their ages. Younger participant observed things from narrow perspective, which improved with increase in ages. The eldest participant gave the finest details that define aspects of deep logical and deductive reasoning. References Fast, I. (1992). Object relations: Toward a relational model of the mind. In J. W. Barron, M. N. Eagle, D. Wolitzky (Eds.) , Interface of psychoanalysis and psychology (pp. 186-199). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10118-007 Flavell, J. H. (1994). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. In R. D. Parke, P. A. Ornstein, J. J. Rieser, C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.) , A century of developmental psychology (pp. 569-587). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10155-020 García, E. E., & Náñez, J. r. (2011). Cognitive theories and their perspectives on language. In , Bilingualism and cognition: Informing research, pedagogy, and policy (pp. 39-55). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12324-002 Kail, R. & Cavanaugh, J. (2013). Human Development: A Life-Span View. 6th Ed. Belmont; CA: Cengage Learning. Read More