DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH- Samuel and Bryant

Page 1

SAMUEL AND BRYANT

AIM: The aim was to challenge Piaget's findings by altering the method used by Piaget.

PROCEDURE: 252 pp's, between 5 1/2 and 8 1/2 . From schools and play groups in Devon. They were divided into 4 groups of the mean age, then they were divided into 3 groups of 21 for the different conditions (table shown below) This was the mean of each age group.

5yrs 3m

6yrs 3m

7yrs 3m

8yrs 3m

METHOD: Lab Experiment and independent measures design.

IV: The 3 conditions, the 4 age groups, 3 kinds of materials used

DV: Number of errors made by the children

PROCEDURE EXPLAINED: The children were tested individually under lab conditions, the standard group was tested using Piagets task, which involved a pre and post transformation question and witnessing the transformation. The one judgement condition was tested using only the post transformation question, after the child had witnessed the transformation. The fixed array condition was tested by being shown the post transformation and not seeing the transformation taken place.

RESULTS: Each child was tested 4 times on each condition, meaning that they all had 12 opportunities to get the answer right or wrong. S&B presented the data in the means of the error results in each age group and per condition.

MEAN AGE:

5 1/2 - STANDARD CONDITION - 8.5 ONE JUDGEMENT CONDITION - 7.3 FIXED ARRAY - 8.6

6 1/2 - STANDARD CONDITION - 5.7 ONE JUDGEMENT CONDITION - 4.3 FIXED ARRAY - 6.4

7 1/2 - STANDARD CONDITION - 3.2 ONE JUDGEMENT CONDITION - 2.6 FIXED ARRAY - 4.9

8 1/2 -STANDARD CONDITION - 1.7 ONE JUDGEMENT CONDITION - 1.3 FIXED ARRAY - 3.3

This table shows the mean of errors made in each condition. The errors in the One judgment condition were lower than any other conditions in every test. The table also shows that the number of errors decreases as the child got older. The fixed array condition, made the most errors out of all the conditions as it was based on the 'leading question' of the witnessing of the first transformation to answer the second question.

TYPE OF TASK

Number - STANDARD CONDITION - 1.476 ONE JUDGEMENT CONDITION - 1.024 FIXED ARRAY - 1.536

Mass - STANDARD CONDITION - 1.512 ONE JUDGEMENT CONDITION - 1.190 FIXED ARRAY - 1.714

Volume - STANDARD CONDITION - 1.810 ONE JUDGEMENT CONDITION - 1.595 FIXED ARRAY - 2.500

This table shows the mean number of errors in the 'number condition were lower than the mean number of errors in the mass and volume conditions, this is shown in the fixed array and one judgment conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Children were significantly more able to conserve in the one judgement condition than in the other conditions, with the fixed array condition children were making the most errors.

The older children were significantly more able to conserve than the younger children, with each condition the older children made less errors then the younger children.

The number task produced significantly fewer errors than either of the other two tasks.