Piaget would explain that the second child solved this problem with abstract reasoning and didn’t actually need concrete representation to solve the problem. The second child also showed signs of knowing the answer inevitably as soon as the prompt was stated and using previous knowledge to back up her answer with good reasoning.
2.Since these children are in very different stages, they both need very different ways of learning. For the first child, I would show concrete examples of certain situations, so that those specific situations would stay fresh in their minds since they witnessed it first hand. I would use symbols and concrete objects to teach lessons, so that this child would be able to see first hand why certain situations are answered in certain ways. For the second child, I would go a bit further and push them to think in detail and have them consider more situations within the one problem that they are trying to answer. I would push two-way thinking by using simple math problems to help this child put two and two together (not literally) but hypothetically. That would help this child further their complex reasoning skills and push them toward the formal operational stage.
I like your teaching ideas! Especially to enhance the second child's analytical thinking. Though I think she might already have a grasp on two-way thinking, as she proved with the feather question. While she would probably know it is unlikely for a feather to break glass, she used two-way thinking to think back to the first notecard and apply that knowledge to give the correct answer.
ReplyDeleteWhat do 'good reasoning', 'specific reasoning', 'out of the box', and 'knowing the answer inevitably' mean? Many others use similar phrases, and it's unclear what you're intending by that. Abstract reasoning? 'Knowing inevitably' seems to mean that she answered quickly, but SPEED isn't something that should change with development.
ReplyDeleteWhat EXACTLY displays identity constancy? What EXACTLY about 'the way she answered' displayed concrete operations?
It's not that the older child doesn't need concrete representation, but along with it, she is capable of representing abstractly. How do you know she is not in formal operations?
BOTH children apply their previous knowledge to new situations (EVERYONE does, according to Piaget). The first child may be in preoperational or concrete operational stage (depending on the argument). It's true that he cannot represent his past experience of what a feather is SIMULTANEOUSLY with the new representation of what a feather is, given by the researcher (this is centration). However, he is able to represent the concepts within the imaginary scenario without the objects being in front of him, so could he be concrete operational?....