Samuel and Bryant: Evaluation

Samuel and Bryant: Evaluation

1. Methodology: Lab experiment

   • strengths
     • high controls over extraneous variables like the fact that the order of the tasks were systematically varied to prevent order effects so a cause and effect can be established
   • weaknesses
     • it is low in ecological validity because the tasks were conducted by a stranger and they would not usually be asked if there was more of something in one glass than the other so the task was not real to life meaning that the results regarding conservation in children will not be able to be generalised to real life

2. Type of data: quantitative data

   • strengths
     • it is easy to compare groups so allows for comparison fro example it allows the results of the 5 year olds and the 8 year olds and their ability to conserve to be compared
   • weaknesses
     • it gives us no insight into why the differences in the childrens ability to conserve occurred for example we do not know why some of the 5 year olds succeeded at the tests and some did not and therefore the validity of the results is lowered

3. Ethical issues

   • informed consent: there is no mention of consent from parents but we assume that it was given
   • Psychological harm: there may be some anxiety shown when being tested by a stranger

4. problems with using children

   • they may become bored and want to leave
   • they may not always do what you say and their answers may not always be thought through
   • they have a limited attention span so may get bored and want to leave
   • they may also show demand characteristics

5. Snapshot

   • features: only one set of data collected, score out of 12 for the conservation tasks Compares different groups at the same time, we don't see how the conservation skill develop with age Do not track or monitor the development of behaviour over time, we don't see how the conservation skills improve with time
   • Strengths
     • allows different groups to be compared at the same time for example the number of errors made was compared between the 5 year olds and the 8 year olds. this allows for detailed conclusions to be drawn
   • weaknesses
     • does not track or monitor the development of behaviour over time for example we do not see how the childrens ability to conserve over time improves with age or experience which ma reduce the effective practical applications regarding how to help children with conservation skills

6. sample

   • strength
     • various ages are used between the ages of 5 and 8.5 which allows us to see if Piagets theory that children can't conserve before the age of 8 is true
   • weakness
     • it is limited and unrepresentative as only children from Crediiton Devon were used and so it is culturally biased meaning that we don't know about the conservation skills of other children in other areas so the results are less useful

7. changes

   • change 1
     • problem: it is low in ecological validity as the children will give little thought to the liquid and counters as they don't hold any meaning to the children
       • change: use materials that the children come across in day to day life like orange juice for volume, cookie doh for mass and sweets for number. the children will then be told that they will get to consume the one that they select at the end
         • implications: :) high ecological validity as the materials that the children will be tested on eg sweets are similar to those that they will experience in real life which means that the results will be able to be generalised to real life :( the results may not be valid because the children may make a rushed decision because they just want some of the 'materials' eg sweets and so it may not actually be testing their conservation skills
           • effects on findings: less errors across the conditions as the children are likely to spend longer considering the higher volume in mass, volume and number if the materials mean something to them. i would still expect the least amount of errors to be made on the number task as this is what Samuel and Bryant and Piaget found
   • change 2
     • Problem: because it is a snapshot study individual differences may affect the results (environmental factors)
       • change: change the study to a longitudinal study where the researcher would test each child on an annual basis repeating the test with the question condition that the child was allocated. the study would start with a group of children as they turn 5 and end when they are 8 so the researcher could analyse the effects of age on conservation
         • implications: :) because the child will be compared against him/herself the risk of individual differences effecting the results is eradicated and we would therefore be able to see at what age children aquire conservation skills :( there is a higher risk of participant attrition as people may move away or drop out and this may lead to a bias sample
           • effects on findings: we would be able to see a clearer difference in the development of the childs ability to conserve as they got older as it is the same children being compared against themselves. we may also see that it is not always number that children are able to conserve first as that is down to individual variations