Results show that the subject’s performance in the standard Piagetian tasks only adds to the already large number of replicated studies. The only point where there is certain discrepancy is in the child’s apparent acquisition of Transitive Inference, specially seeing his failure in the Class Inclusion task. Piaget proposed that the order of acquisition of the pre-operational stages starts with Class inclusion, while Transitive inference and Conservation are learnt simultaneously (Inhelder & Piaget, 1964). However, the obtained data does follow studies done Mwamwenda(1985), in which Class Inclusion and Conservation were seen as being acquired at the same time.

A main criticism of the standard Piagetian conservation of liquid task is that asking two separate questions may confuse the child. Rose & Blank (1974) found that 4-5 year olds could answer conservation questions when asked only one question after the transformation. This "Change of Mind Hypothesis" is shared by several authors in the literature (Gold, 1988; Perner et al, 1984; Light, 1988; Bryant, 1982). Several theories have been proposed to describe this phenomenon. Gold (1988) points out that the child might be responding to the perceived expectations of the experimenter. When the experimenter transforms the stimuli, the child may take that as a cue to re-evaluate their original answer.

Perner, Leekman and Weiner (1984, cited Light 1988) propose that the second question is taken as a "second order question". The child might not understand why the experimenter is asking the child the question, since it is evident they have both had the same amount of information. The child might take this to mean that the expectation has not been met. This could be specially applicable to pre-school children, who are not used to the second order questioning (where the questioner knows the right answer) that schooled children receive. Evidence for this is noted in Bovet’s (1986, cited Light 1988) experiments, where the child changed their "conserver" answers when they were asked to justify them.

This account, however, does not adequately explain the results from the Parisi (1985) paper. In this study, an experimenter tries to "trick" a child into changing his mind on a correct answer. The study showed a very poor success rate in "tricking" children.

Donalsdson (1974, cited Wheldal and Poborca, 1980) puts forth the idea that young children have problems with the semiotics of a comparator like ‘more’. Instead of asking "is there more water? ", I have taken a suggestion from McGarrigle & Donaldson (1975), and simply asked if the amounts were "fair". This measure should compensate for problems in grasping the "more" comparator. Studies have shown that non-verbal tasks have shown greater positive answers (Wheldal and Poborca, 1980), suggesting language may be a problem in young children. It should be noted that there are objections to this claim from Bovet (1986).

Lastly, I felt that there was a need for the child to be familiar with the apparatus and testing context. In this way, the test procedure itself would not be a distraction, and would induce a more natural response. This coincides with Light’s (1988) view that putting a child in a sociably intelligible situation better shows their true comprehension.

Unfortunately, the negative results obtained in the alternative task neither proves nor disproves the Piagetian stance. It could hold that the Piagetian theory is right; the child performed poorly in the task since it had yet to develop the level of concrete thinking. This is further emphasized by the fact that even when the task was presented in "easier" formats, there was still failure to attain a correct answer.

Whether this new task can be effective with children younger than Piaget proposed can only be truly evaluated by obtaining data from a large sample group. Given the data from this experiment leads us to accept the Piagetian theory, that no matter how the experiment is modified, the child is far too young to posses the skills to understand conservation.

There is evidence of conservation being understood as young as three year of age (Halford, 1989). Furthermore, studies by Kit-fong Au et al (1993) have shown that even more complex examples of conservation, such as the dissolving of sugar into water, can be constantly achieved by three year olds. The question of whether Piaget’s stage theory is valid still ensues.

Transcript

 

Note : There were pauses between each task, which have not been scripted. Due to the familiar relationship with the child, experimenter ("Mos") and child (Gerardo) refer to each other familiarly.

Conservation of liquid

Experimenter : Ok, Gerardo. Now we are going to play those games we talked about, ok?

Gerardo : Ok.

E : I’m going to pour out some cordial into this glass… …. Like this……

E: Now, when I fill this one up, I want you to tell me when I should stop so that the liquid is the same is both of those. Can you do that for me?

G : [nods head]

E : Here we go…..

G : Stop

E : Is there the same amount of cordial in both the glasses now, Gerardo?

G : No. More for this one.

E : This much?

G : yeah.

E : Ok, so they now have the same amount of cordial, is that right?

G : [nods head]

E : Now I’m going to pour this one out into this other glass.

E : Now, is there the same amount of cordial in this glass as there is in this glass?

G : [pause]

E : Gerardo? Are they the same, or is there more in one of the glasses?

G : This one [pointing to the taller glass].

E : This one is more or less?

G : More.

E : Ok, why is there more cordial in that one?

G : ‘Cos it is bigger.

Conservation of Number

E : Ok, now we are going to go on the floor. I am going to put some of these marbles in a row. Ok?

G : [nods head]

E : Ok. Can you help me make another row that has the same number of marbles as that one?

G : uhm.

E : Good, that is it. Ok, so there are the same amount of marbles in this one as in this one?

G : [nods head]

E : Now, [rearranging the marbles], are there still the same amount of marbles in the two rows?

G : [shakes head]

E : There isn’t? Does one have more than the other?

G : Yeah, this one’s more, ‘cos it is longer like this.

E : So there are more marbles in this one.

G : [pause]. One, two three, four, five, six. Six on that one.

E : So that is the one that has more?

G : [nods head].

 

Class inclusion

E : Gerardo, can you show me your toy soldiers again?

G : Here they are Mos.

E : Good! Can I play with them for a bit?

G : yeah, but not this one, this one is mine.

E : Ok. Now, I’m going to line them up like this….

E : Ok, can you tell me, is there more black soldiers, or more soldiers?

G : There is more black soldiers, cos they are going to win.

E : Why are there more black soldiers that soldiers?

G : ‘cos there is one, two, three, four white soldiers and one two three four five six black ones, so the black ones are going to win.

 

Transitive Inference

E : Here we have some sticks. Can you see that these are of different lengths?

G : [nods head]

E : Good, now, can you tell me which one is bigger, the green one or the white one?

G : This one is bigger.

E : The white is bigger than the green?

G : Yes.

E : Ok. Now, let’s put this one away. Here is another one. Which one is bigger now, the red one of the white one?

G : red.

E : Ok. Now, I am going to get you to do something for me. Out of this ones, which one is bigger, the red one or the green one?

G : [pause]. The red one.

E : Good, can you tell me why the red one is the bigger one?

G : Cos it was bigger than all of them.

Alternative Task 1

Conservation of Liquid revised

E : Ok, Gerardo, I’m going to pour out some Fanta into this glass. You like Fanta, don’t you?

G : Yeah, it’s yummy!

E : Well, I’m going to pour these out. Now I want you to watch me.

G : [nods head]

E : Now, I am going to pour this glass into your special cup, so that you can drink as much as me.

E : Do you think that we have the amounts so that they are fair?

G : No. You have some more than I do.

E : Gerardo, why do I have more?

G : Cos you put mine into… mine is a smaller one.

Alternative Task 2

Conservation of Number (naughty experimenter)

E : Now, here are some of the lollies I told you about.

E : Can you help me so that we put two rows that are equal, one for you and one for me?

G : Kay.

E : Lets see, are these the same now?

G : Yeah.

E : Ok, now let me just get my glass….. ooops… I messed them up!

G : [giggle]

E : Hmm, does this mean that we both have the same still.

G : yeah, you have the red ones.

E : Why do we still have the same ones for you and for me?

G : pause

G : Can I have the red ones?

E : Why do you want the red ones?

G : Cos there is lots of them.