Piaget Adventures in Central Thailand
November 2018.
Abstract
This paper discusses an experiment performed on ten primary school aged students in a rural, Thai school. The Trechula Suaksa School in Kamphaeng Phet Province. The purpose of which is to determine if Piaget’s pre-operation and operational age divisions of cognitive development are displayed by these students. Five experiments were conducted: conservation of number, liquid quantity, solid quantity, mass quantity, and a test of fairness. The results confirmed Piaget. Students in the age range of 7-10 showed an adult level of object conservation, while younger students did not.
Keywords: Piaget, cognitive development, experiment.
Introduction
There is a question facing all educators—just what can and cannot students understand at what age? To answer this question the psychologist Jean Piaget developed the Theory of Cognitive Development in the mid-20th century. His theory was groundbreaking in that he stated that children are not “small adults”, but that children progress through successive stages of mental development until they develop into a fully cognitive adult. For educational purposes, that at earlier stages children do not possess adult equivalent mental faculties and are unable to process information and exhibit understanding equivalent to an adult, irrespective of the diligence of the student or the quality of the teaching.
b. Conservation of liquid quantity
Two identical glasses were filled equally with water and placed on the table. The student was shown the two glasses and asked if the two were bigger, the same, or smaller. Then the water from one glass was poured into a taller and wider glass. This halved the height of the water. Then the question was repeated.
c. Conservation of Solid Quantity
Two straws of equal length were placed parallel on the table before the student. The student was asked if they were bigger, the same, or smaller. Next, the straw closest to the student was moved away, so that the two straws were no longer parallel. The question was repeated.
d. Conservation of Mass.
For this experiment, two equal in quantity balls of plasticine were used. The student was first asked if the two balls were bigger, the same, or smaller. After the initial answer, one ball was flattened, squeezed flat. Then the student was asked the same question.
e. Fairness
Last, the fairness test. The Director gave two playing cards to herself and one card to the student. The student was asked if this was or was not fair. Then the student’s card was cut into two (giving the student ‘two’ cards, but each card half the size of the directors) and the student was again asked if this was fair or not a fair division. The cards were standard playing cards displayed face down (the student saw only the back of the cards).
Results
There was a clear separation of the students into two groups. Those that perceived conservation (the older) and those that did not. Generally, those that did tended to answer quickly, those that did not (the younger students) took time to ponder their answer.
All the students were curious about the test. The older students took longer to answer and were suspicious, concerned that they may fail or be ‘tricked’ into an incorrect answer. Three-quarters of the older students stated that the test starting points were not equal —e.g. that one plasticine ball was larger than the other, or that more water was in one container than the other (not the case). I answered these objections by making token sized exchanges between the starting objects (i.e. I moved a tiny piece of plasticine from one ball to the other). This calmed the student’s objection.
As Piaget had predicted, all the results are consistent with his findings and supported his stage-based model of cognitive development. Conservation of number, at age 7-8 the student recognised that the number of coins remained the same. For liquid conservation age, 8 was the tipping point to a correct answer. Conservation of solid quantity (two straws) was age 10. For conservation of mass (plasticine balls) it was also age 10. The last test was Fairness. At age 8 students stated that two half-cards were not a fair division against two full-sized cards. There was no significant difference in answers between girls and boys.
Discussion
- It is clear that students wanted to “get it right”, to give the correct answer, which raises the question as to what extent their answers reflect their true beliefs and understanding. Yet, the students gave every indication that they were thinking their own thoughts, trying to give what they considered the ‘correct’ answer. Their answers were due to their own understanding of the world.
- The younger students, who gave an ‘incorrect’ answer, were clearly unable to grasp the concept of what the ‘correct’ answer was. After the initial run of experiments, I asked the director to talk to two of the ‘incorrect’ answer students and explain carefully to the students the correct reasoning. Essentially, to teach correct thinking. For example, with a student to carefully count the ten coins in each row, explain to the student that the number was equal, and have the student count and even ‘play’ with the coins (so as to give a tactile awareness of the coins, not merely visual). Even with this preparation the students still asserted that the number was not equal after the coins had been spread out. In fact, they seemed more adamant after been given the ‘correct’ explanation. This suggests the existence of a clear stage of cognitive development.
- While there was a clear sign of cognitive development measured against age, the division was not clear-cut. The cognitively aware ages ranged from 7 to 10, different tasks and different students at different ages gained ‘adult’ awareness. The results show that the students are in different stages of development and that this is the cause of the difference in responses. Specifically, for classroom teaching, this demonstrates that some tasks are simply beyond the
Abstract
This paper discusses an experiment performed on ten primary school aged students in a rural, Thai school. The Trechula Suaksa School in Kamphaeng Phet Province. The purpose of which is to determine if Piaget’s pre-operation and operational age divisions of cognitive development are displayed by these students. Five experiments were conducted: conservation of number, liquid quantity, solid quantity, mass quantity, and a test of fairness. The results confirmed Piaget. Students in the age range of 7-10 showed an adult level of object conservation, while younger students did not.
Keywords: Piaget, cognitive development, experiment.
Introduction
There is a question facing all educators—just what can and cannot students understand at what age? To answer this question the psychologist Jean Piaget developed the Theory of Cognitive Development in the mid-20th century. His theory was groundbreaking in that he stated that children are not “small adults”, but that children progress through successive stages of mental development until they develop into a fully cognitive adult. For educational purposes, that at earlier stages children do not possess adult equivalent mental faculties and are unable to process information and exhibit understanding equivalent to an adult, irrespective of the diligence of the student or the quality of the teaching.
There are four stages of Piaget's theory: sensorimotor stage (birth
until 2), the pre-operational stage (2 until 6 or 7), the concrete
operational stage (6 or 7 until 11 or 12), and the formal operation
stage (11 or 12 through to adulthood).
This set of stages can and should act as a backdrop for teachers. Teachers need to be aware that children in each stage cannot grasp certain information. Attempts to compel students to understand and learn material beyond their years will only lead to frustration and rejection of education by the student.
Having taught cognitive development and Piaget for several years at Thongsook College in Thailand I was prompted to repeat Piaget’s experiments and determine for myself just how well his thinking held up in rural Thailand.
A key feature of Piagetian development is “conservation”—an awareness that objects possess an innate nature, one separate from ourselves and our perception. Aspects of conservation are that objects can change outside our perception, that objects continue to exist outside our ken, and that other people perceive objects differently from ourselves. This awareness is a sign of adulthood. This is an awareness that necessitates a complex understanding of the true nature of the objects around us. To phrase this in simpler terms—things don’t change simply because the appearance changes.
Piaget's conservation experiment tasks involve tests for the conservation of number, liquid, solid, and mass. According to Piaget, children in the concrete stage are able to solve these
This set of stages can and should act as a backdrop for teachers. Teachers need to be aware that children in each stage cannot grasp certain information. Attempts to compel students to understand and learn material beyond their years will only lead to frustration and rejection of education by the student.
Having taught cognitive development and Piaget for several years at Thongsook College in Thailand I was prompted to repeat Piaget’s experiments and determine for myself just how well his thinking held up in rural Thailand.
A key feature of Piagetian development is “conservation”—an awareness that objects possess an innate nature, one separate from ourselves and our perception. Aspects of conservation are that objects can change outside our perception, that objects continue to exist outside our ken, and that other people perceive objects differently from ourselves. This awareness is a sign of adulthood. This is an awareness that necessitates a complex understanding of the true nature of the objects around us. To phrase this in simpler terms—things don’t change simply because the appearance changes.
Piaget's conservation experiment tasks involve tests for the conservation of number, liquid, solid, and mass. According to Piaget, children in the concrete stage are able to solve these
problems while pre-operational stage children are not. In other
words children aged 7 or younger are egocentric, objects exist
primarily in their mind and objects change depending on the
child’s perception. They cannot “conserve” reality. Conservation is
to understand that the physical characteristics of objects remain
unchanged, even when their outward appearance changes. The
thinking of pre-operational age children is also hampered by being
unable to concentrate on more than one object simultaneously.
After reviewing Piaget's conservation model and the relevant experiments, I set up experiments designed to mimic Piaget's tests. The existing belief being that children at the age of 6-7 are not capable of passing the tasks of conservations, while 8-year-olds are able to succeed at the same tests.
These tests are not original with me, they were used by Piaget and any number of experiments since.
Participants
The research examined ten students ranging in age from 4 to 12, an equal mix of boys and girls. Each student was assigned an identifying number (from 1 to 10). This was due partly to anonymity, and partly due to the Thai custom of using nicknames, which occasionally change. Numbers are an easier option for keeping track of students.
For each task, the subjects were separated and had no knowledge of what was to be presented to them beforehand.
After reviewing Piaget's conservation model and the relevant experiments, I set up experiments designed to mimic Piaget's tests. The existing belief being that children at the age of 6-7 are not capable of passing the tasks of conservations, while 8-year-olds are able to succeed at the same tests.
These tests are not original with me, they were used by Piaget and any number of experiments since.
Participants
The research examined ten students ranging in age from 4 to 12, an equal mix of boys and girls. Each student was assigned an identifying number (from 1 to 10). This was due partly to anonymity, and partly due to the Thai custom of using nicknames, which occasionally change. Numbers are an easier option for keeping track of students.
For each task, the subjects were separated and had no knowledge of what was to be presented to them beforehand.
Process
There were four conservation experiments: number, liquid, solid, and mass. There was also a fifth experiment of ‘fairness’.
Before presenting the students with the tasks I made several decisions.
i. I recorded each student’s response to each question while remaining ‘in the background’, sitting behind the student so that my disruptive presence was not immediately obvious.
ii. The school director would conduct the experiments with the students. She agreed to this enthusiastically. In preparation, we spent half an hour or so discussing each individual experiment. I explained that she must use the same words and sentences to each student, with an even tone, and no excessive facial expressions. As part of the preparation, we performed the experiments on each other (we passed) to ensure full understanding of the procedure.
iii. All questions and procedures were identical for each subject.
iv. All operations in the experiment were performed in full view of the student (e.g. water poured into a different shaped glass).
v. Every student received a small reward, in this case the sugary treat of a donut.
The Experiments
a. Conservation of number
Two rows of ten coins (Thai 10 baht coins) were placed on the table before each student. First, the director counted each row of coins with the student. Then the student was asked if these two rows were the bigger, the same, or smaller. Then the row of coins closest to the student was spread out to approximately twice the starting length. The same question was then asked of the student.
There were four conservation experiments: number, liquid, solid, and mass. There was also a fifth experiment of ‘fairness’.
Before presenting the students with the tasks I made several decisions.
i. I recorded each student’s response to each question while remaining ‘in the background’, sitting behind the student so that my disruptive presence was not immediately obvious.
ii. The school director would conduct the experiments with the students. She agreed to this enthusiastically. In preparation, we spent half an hour or so discussing each individual experiment. I explained that she must use the same words and sentences to each student, with an even tone, and no excessive facial expressions. As part of the preparation, we performed the experiments on each other (we passed) to ensure full understanding of the procedure.
iii. All questions and procedures were identical for each subject.
iv. All operations in the experiment were performed in full view of the student (e.g. water poured into a different shaped glass).
v. Every student received a small reward, in this case the sugary treat of a donut.
The Experiments
a. Conservation of number
Two rows of ten coins (Thai 10 baht coins) were placed on the table before each student. First, the director counted each row of coins with the student. Then the student was asked if these two rows were the bigger, the same, or smaller. Then the row of coins closest to the student was spread out to approximately twice the starting length. The same question was then asked of the student.
b. Conservation of liquid quantity
Two identical glasses were filled equally with water and placed on the table. The student was shown the two glasses and asked if the two were bigger, the same, or smaller. Then the water from one glass was poured into a taller and wider glass. This halved the height of the water. Then the question was repeated.
c. Conservation of Solid Quantity
Two straws of equal length were placed parallel on the table before the student. The student was asked if they were bigger, the same, or smaller. Next, the straw closest to the student was moved away, so that the two straws were no longer parallel. The question was repeated.
d. Conservation of Mass.
For this experiment, two equal in quantity balls of plasticine were used. The student was first asked if the two balls were bigger, the same, or smaller. After the initial answer, one ball was flattened, squeezed flat. Then the student was asked the same question.
e. Fairness
Last, the fairness test. The Director gave two playing cards to herself and one card to the student. The student was asked if this was or was not fair. Then the student’s card was cut into two (giving the student ‘two’ cards, but each card half the size of the directors) and the student was again asked if this was fair or not a fair division. The cards were standard playing cards displayed face down (the student saw only the back of the cards).
Results
There was a clear separation of the students into two groups. Those that perceived conservation (the older) and those that did not. Generally, those that did tended to answer quickly, those that did not (the younger students) took time to ponder their answer.
All the students were curious about the test. The older students took longer to answer and were suspicious, concerned that they may fail or be ‘tricked’ into an incorrect answer. Three-quarters of the older students stated that the test starting points were not equal —e.g. that one plasticine ball was larger than the other, or that more water was in one container than the other (not the case). I answered these objections by making token sized exchanges between the starting objects (i.e. I moved a tiny piece of plasticine from one ball to the other). This calmed the student’s objection.
As Piaget had predicted, all the results are consistent with his findings and supported his stage-based model of cognitive development. Conservation of number, at age 7-8 the student recognised that the number of coins remained the same. For liquid conservation age, 8 was the tipping point to a correct answer. Conservation of solid quantity (two straws) was age 10. For conservation of mass (plasticine balls) it was also age 10. The last test was Fairness. At age 8 students stated that two half-cards were not a fair division against two full-sized cards. There was no significant difference in answers between girls and boys.
Discussion
- It is clear that students wanted to “get it right”, to give the correct answer, which raises the question as to what extent their answers reflect their true beliefs and understanding. Yet, the students gave every indication that they were thinking their own thoughts, trying to give what they considered the ‘correct’ answer. Their answers were due to their own understanding of the world.
- The younger students, who gave an ‘incorrect’ answer, were clearly unable to grasp the concept of what the ‘correct’ answer was. After the initial run of experiments, I asked the director to talk to two of the ‘incorrect’ answer students and explain carefully to the students the correct reasoning. Essentially, to teach correct thinking. For example, with a student to carefully count the ten coins in each row, explain to the student that the number was equal, and have the student count and even ‘play’ with the coins (so as to give a tactile awareness of the coins, not merely visual). Even with this preparation the students still asserted that the number was not equal after the coins had been spread out. In fact, they seemed more adamant after been given the ‘correct’ explanation. This suggests the existence of a clear stage of cognitive development.
- While there was a clear sign of cognitive development measured against age, the division was not clear-cut. The cognitively aware ages ranged from 7 to 10, different tasks and different students at different ages gained ‘adult’ awareness. The results show that the students are in different stages of development and that this is the cause of the difference in responses. Specifically, for classroom teaching, this demonstrates that some tasks are simply beyond the
ability of the student. Don’t push your students beyond what they
can do.
- Limitations, with only ten students the results are not statistically significant. This test consumed a morning from start to finish. After we ‘got going’ a battery of tests for each student took approximately 20 minutes. Not long, so it would be possible to test say 100 students in one week. Though the analysis would take at least an equal quantity of time.
- A future option would be to track individual students on a regular basis, say to repeat the test every one, two, or three months so as to delineate at precisely what age their understanding changes. Though this level of precision may affect the test as students gossip amongst themselves, and students may decide to give different answers to the same question.
Conclusion
Piaget’s model of cognitive development does exist and does reflect a correct understanding of the mental development of children. At certain ages, children can and cannot understand certain concepts. This is a universal reality. It applies to all children both male and female of all nationalities, ethnicities, and backgrounds, though of course there is individual variation. For teachers, your students cannot learn certain concepts, as they are too young. Teach accordingly.
- Limitations, with only ten students the results are not statistically significant. This test consumed a morning from start to finish. After we ‘got going’ a battery of tests for each student took approximately 20 minutes. Not long, so it would be possible to test say 100 students in one week. Though the analysis would take at least an equal quantity of time.
- A future option would be to track individual students on a regular basis, say to repeat the test every one, two, or three months so as to delineate at precisely what age their understanding changes. Though this level of precision may affect the test as students gossip amongst themselves, and students may decide to give different answers to the same question.
Conclusion
Piaget’s model of cognitive development does exist and does reflect a correct understanding of the mental development of children. At certain ages, children can and cannot understand certain concepts. This is a universal reality. It applies to all children both male and female of all nationalities, ethnicities, and backgrounds, though of course there is individual variation. For teachers, your students cannot learn certain concepts, as they are too young. Teach accordingly.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank the Trechula School director Dr Kanyanit, assistants: students Om and student May, and teacher Aye as video recorder.
I would like to thank the Trechula School director Dr Kanyanit, assistants: students Om and student May, and teacher Aye as video recorder.
---------------------------------------
Comments