What stages of development do the two children appear to be in? How would Piaget explain what is happening here?
· The little boy was in the pre-operational stage. He remembers that hard objects break things, but soft objects do not break things. He sorted the objects by how hard they are. His thinking is one-way. His answer did was not the answer the question wanted.
· The girl was in the formal operational stage. She is thinking about the glass in an abstract way. She listens to what the example says rather than coming up with her own answer. She knows the answer is not correct, but it is the correct answer for the situation.
What sort of techniques could you use to teach each child? Why must the techniques differ?
· I would show both of the children that the feather does not break the glass. (I would not show them the hammer breaking the glass because that could become a safety hazard and the children already understand that concept. I would also have to teach them about cause and effect. You spill water near you papers and your papers get wet. This example would work best for the boy because the girl would get bored with this example. The techniques have to differ because the two children are at two different levels.
· The boy would need a few demonstrations. It would really help the boy to have a hands-on experience.
The girl would need to try it out and relate it to her life. She can do this because her level is good with thinking abstractly.
I really liked your response. One thing I would add to the teaching method for the young boy would be to give him some demonstrations that do not yield his expected result. (e.g. ask if a piece of paper or a rock falls faster, then show them the misconception). With a number of these experiences, children in the pre-operational stage will start to notice that not everything turns out as expected. These demonstrations can lead children to start questioning other things, and help them understand two-way thinking.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand your explanations. Memory is not the thing to focus on when thinking about this task. BOTH children are remembering their past experience with a feather and a hammer when asked these questions. For example, the boy remembers his past concept of a feather, but cannot hold that concept (a feather cannot break a glass) simultaneously with the new one presented to him (a feather can break a glass). That would be an explanation of the boy showing centration.
ReplyDeleteHow can you tell the boy is not in concrete operations? (he is able to think about the scenario despite it not being physically in front of him)
I like how you make the task visual and concrete. You're right that it would only be beneficial for the boy. Again, it's not really about cause and effect. The girl can think about the logic problem like an equation, and solve it (it's VERY abstract like symbol manipulation). The boy, seeing a video (with editing) of a feather breaking a glass may suddenly say 'OH, well SOME feathers can break a glass.'
I agree with most of your interpretation of what the children showed in the videos, but I feel like you left out a part of the boy's results. The boy failed to respond to the hypothetical situation, and he only based his final answer on his previous knowledge. The older girl was able to show hypothetical reasoning unlike the younger boy. I would think showing how the feather breaks the glass would be redundant when teaching the boy the hypothetical situation...he would end up still giving you the same answer as before...
ReplyDelete