result

PiagetsConservationStage

By: Anna Gianiotes4/28/11?Conservation 1IntroductionAccording to Berk, conservation refers to the idea that certain physical characteristics of objects remain the same, even when their outward appearance changes (Berk 2005, p.241). Children younger than eight lack the ability to cognitively process the concept of conservation. I am able to see this kind of thinking in the children in my pre-kindergarten class. Often, when I serve snack, one child will say they received less, even though I use the same measuring cup to serve everyone. If they see a difference in the spacing of items they often state that they are not the same. One day, the center I work at was having lunch together. Child number 18 could not believe how much money my boss had in her hand because there were a lot of ones in the pile. I decided to test conservation with both groups of children that I have in my care. One group is between 4 and 5 years of age who have not yet entered school; the other group is from 5 to 11 years of age who are of school age. I wanted to use money just to see the reactions from my younger children. However, I also need to have a more dramatic conservation task for comparison. According to Piaget, it is not until the concrete operations stage, which occurs between the ages of 8 to 11, can a childs mind comprehends conservation although it may possible occur earlier.Description of Methods and Analysis of Results I decided to pick two conservation experiments to do with both groups. The first experiment consisted of two stacks of money. When I first did this experiment with the pre-kindergarten group, I used a fifty dollar bill in one stack and a stack of ones and fives in the Conservation 2other. I asked the children if they would help me with my home work. I brought each child over to the back corner of my classroom to do the experiment individually. I had the money on the floor in two stacks one with all the ones and five; the other one with the f ifty. I asked them the question which has more? All the children picked the stack with the ones and fives. I took pictures of which stack they picked and asked them to tell me why they picked the stack. As I thought more about the experiment and reread Piagets definition of conservation, I decided that I did not conduct the experiment correctly. According to the definition both stacks should be the same with the only difference being the physical aspect. I redid the experiment using five ones and a five in one stack; the other stack contained a ten dollar bill. I told the children that both of the stacks had the same amount of money in them. Then I asked the question, Which has more? After I recorded these results, I set up for the water conservation experiment. I took two four ounce cups and filled them with water equally. In front of those two cups, I placed two different size cups. One cup was a short flat portion cup and the other on was a tall twelve ounce cup. I brough t each child over individually and did the experiment. I showed both of the four ounce cups full of water to the children and again told them that both the cups of water had the same amount of water. Then I had them watch as I poured the water into the two different cups. I then asked them which cup had more? I took pictures and recorded their answers and explanations. In the afternoon, my school age children arrived. We go outside first, so I started with the water conservation experiment because the money would have blown away. I brought each Conservation 3child over to the picnic table and explained to them that they were helping me with my home work. I had the two four ounces cups full of water. In front of those two cups, I set the portion cup and the twelve ounce cup. I told every child that the two four ounce cups had the same amount of water in them; then I poured the water in the two different cups and asked the children which cup had more. I took pictures and reco rded their answers and explanations. When we went inside, I set up the money conservation activity. I had the ones and five in one pile and the ten dollar bill in the other pile. I called the children over one at a time. I told them that both of the piles of money had the same amount of money in them. Then I asked them which one had more. I took pictures and recorded their answers and explanations. After I collected all my data, I assigned all the children a number. The results were very interesting and I wanted parents to be able to review the results confidentially. I sent a letter to all the parents of the children in the experiment informing of them of the process and their childs number. Displayed below are charts of the results of both experiments for the prekindergarten and school age groups. In the charts every child is defined by a number. Their age and the choice they made is available for comparison. I also decided to ask each child the question Why?, in order for me to reflect on their thinking processes during the experiments. Theoretical AnalysisBefore I started the money experiment, I had a hypothesis that all the children, except two, of the pre-kindergarten children would pick the stack of money which contained a higher number of bills. Number 2 and 28 have higher than normal cognitive capacity in the pre-Conservation 6 kindergarten class based on observations I have conducted in my classroom. They have excellent recall and problem solving techniques. I was sure that they would understand that both piles of money contain the same amount. On the other hand number 22 surprised me when he picked the ten dollar bill for its face value. When interviewing his mom, about number 22s results, she smiled and said that he learned early from his older sister about the value of money. As Piaget explained, younger childrens understanding is centered, or characterized by centration meaning they focus on one aspect of a situation (Berk 2005, p . 241). However, money may have not been the best example to use because as demonstrated with child number 22, it is cultural. Furthermore, child number 2, whom I believed would understand the concept did not say that the one pile had more, but simple stated that she liked dollars. Therefore, child number 2, may have based her choice on personal preference verses lack of knowledge. With the money experiment, prior knowledge of the value of money would determine the childs answer. As a result, the most important part of my experiment was the comparison with the water conservation experiment (Berk 2005, p. 241). I predicted for the pre-kindergarten class that most of the children would pick the short cup because it looked fuller. However, I contemplated about whether numbers 2 and 28s lack of prior knowledge of money was why they lacked the ability for conservation. Most of the prekindergarten children chose the small cup and provided the explanation that it was full to top. H owever, some of the younger children did note the difference in the two cups. Most of the younger children made the choices that Piagets predicted but there were some exceptions. I was surprised by some of the children who did not understand the water conservation and some that did understand it. Conservation 7Example child number 10, noted the physical difference of the cups by stating that one cup is littler and the other one is bigger, but failed to connect that the water previously poured was unchanged. While most of the children did chose the smaller cup, child number 2, immediately stated that the water was the same in both cups but the one cup was short so it looked fuller and the other cup was taller so it was not as full. Child number 28 also had a corresponding answer (See video). I was surprised that the original hypothesis I had made about number 2 and 28 in correspondence to the money experiment was accurate for the water conversation experiment. Number 2 and 28 s ability to understand the water conversation disproves Piagets theory that children are unable to understand the concept of conversation because the two children did not even hesitate to tell me that the two cups of water was the same. My hypothesis for the after-schoolings was completely off base. I made my hypothesis based on Piagets concrete operational theory that children develop conversation around the age of eight. I predicted that some of my seven year olds and up would easily complete the water conversation task. The results found that only child number 15, eleven years of age concluded that the water in the two four ounce cups remained the same after it was poured into the two different cups. According to Piagets, she is toward the end of the concrete operations stage. It was very interesting to see some of the arguments the older children were having defending what they believed was the correct answer. Although numbers 19,17, and 11 arguments for why they were r ight, displayed logical thinking, they failed to make the connection that there was no physical change in the water only in the cups into which the Conservation 8water was poured, again demonstrating Piagets centration explanation. The three children only focused on the physical change of the cups. However, all the children I hypothesized would understand the water conversation, did understand the concept of conversation in the money experiment. Child number 8 was the first to explain to me that five ones and a five were the same as a ten. Some of the younger children were still confused a little and explained that the pile of ones and a five was bigger because of it is physical appearance (see video of child 25). Furthermore, child number 15 quickly caught on to the point of the both experiments was proud of the more advanced knowledge she possessed.Methodological AnalysisDuring this experiment, I was surprised by many of the younger childrens answers. Especially, how their thinking was headed in a logical direction. I was shocked that many of my older children inability to conserve (Berk 2005, p. 241). However, in comparing the two grade levels, using the two children from the prekindergarten class who completed the water conversation experiment at the age of 5 versus the one eleven year old who completed it in the afterschool program was extremely surprising to me. Vygotsky theory of social-cultural development, best fits a theory for my experiments because as demonstrated in the results of the money of experiment with the after school childrens prior knowledge and social factors associated with money directly correlates with my results from the money experiment. By using Vygotskys theory of the zone of proximal development, to scaffold conversation; many of the younger children could comprehend the concept at a younger age because the answers the Conservation 9younger children stated where logical and not of basis at all. Furthermore, if I had performed the money conversation experiment with the older children first, they would have already had the prior knowledge associated with money experiment and may have inferred that knowledge when they were challenged with the water conversation experiment.Once I had conducted all the experiments on all the children I explained to them what was happening. Although many of the older children had already made the connection from the money experiment to the water experiment, from one younger child number 20, I still received the what do you mean they are the same comment, even after more scaffolding and demonstrations. In conclusion while the conversation experiments I conducted demonstrated some cultural influence the experiments also demonstrated that what stage of Piagets operational stage theory children are currently in also played an important role in the results of my conservation experiments

Bibliography

Berk, Laura E. (2006). Child development. Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Education. p. 241-266