ARE STUDENTS REALLY READY TO LEARN WHAT THEY ARE BEING TAUGHT?

A research study based on the cognitive development stages of Jean Piaget

By Carry Hansen

OBJECTIVES At the end of this presentation you will be

able to: Explain critical biographical points of Jean Piaget Define and explain critical theoretical concepts

relevant to the research study including key terms

Articulate the research questions that drive the study

Understand the procedure of the research study Summarize the findings and implications Generate new questions for additional research

JEAN PIAGET 1896-1980 Born in Switzerland Began as a Biologist

1st published at age 10- Albino Sparrows Researched Mollusks in high school At age 21, received a Doctorate in Natural

Studies Conflict Changed Gears

Realized that his religious and philosophical ideas did not have scientific reasoning as their foundation

Tried to bridge philosophy and science “genetic epistemology” – questions concerning the

origin of knowledge and began research in child psychology

PIAGET’S RESEARCH Influenced by his point in time

1920’s standardized testing movement Testing soldiers for military placement

Influenced by others Binet Lab in Paris

IQ testing of children – became very interested in the wrong answer patterns of children because very different from adults wrong answers– WHY?

Rousseau Institute of Geneva Interviewed 7-12 year olds and found that before age 7,

children have a qualitative difference in their responses Married, had children, continued children’s cognitive

development questioning Spent numerous years developing his theory, and

later refining his theory in response to critism

PIAGET’S THEORY Integrated stage theory Developmentalist, not maturationist

The developmental change is not genetic in basis Development is increasingly comprehensive Children constantly investigate, make sense of

their environment and construct new “schema” Invariant and universal

Although each child has their own rate Age norms

2/3rds nurture, 1/3 nature All organisms have a biologic tendency, but it is

interaction with the environment that drives the ongoing development of cognition (understanding)

KEY CONCEPTS Organization

An organisms biologic tendency to organize (inherited) Schema

Non-tangible cognitive structures that are constantly adapting due to new experiences and manipulations of the world around us

Assimilation Using the current schema to interpret the world

Accommodation Using the world experiences to change a schema

Disequilibrium When the schema does not fit the situation at hand,

causing adaptation to occur

STAGES OF PIAGET’S THEORY Sensorimotor (0-2)

First explorations, without purpose and then with purpose

Object permanence marks the transition to the next stage

Preoperational (2-7) Symbolic activity begins, language Cognition becomes more efficient but still limited Egocentric, animism, centration (one

dimensional), irreversibility, transductive reasoning

Conservation tasks marks the transition to the next stage

STAGES OF PIAGET’S THEORY Concrete Operational

Logical thinking can occur IF a tangible experience occurs

Hypothetical and Abstract situations are not understood

Reversibility begins without manipulation Cylinder Task marks the transition to the next

stage Formal Operational

Logical thinking occurs hypothetically and abstractly

Individual has accommodated schema to be able to accurately make predictions about the world

WHAT IS CONSERVATION? A cognitive development that cannot occur Happens spontaneously by a child Occurs in a certain sequence through various

tasks: Liquid/Number Weight/substance Volume Length Surfaces Wholes after spatial arrangements

3 reasons: identity, compensation, inversion The ability to determine what stays the same and

what changes in an abject after aesthetic change

STAGES-DIMENSIONS OF THINKING Preoperational (2-7)

Illogical responses do not address common reasons (dimensions) of an

object An object floats because it is a ball

Concrete (7-11) Semi logical response, logic may appear after child

can try the task (analysis afterwards) Addresses one dimension (property) of the object May make conflicting statements and cannot decide

which is correct An object floats because it is very large, but that

means it should be heavy so it sinks, but it floats because…

STAGES-DIMENSIONS OF THINKING Formal Operational (11- adulthood)

Response based on logic Addresses multi-dimensions of an object and the

relationship between those dimensions Hypothetical situations addressed with logic Abstract abilities An object floats even though it is very heavy

because it is very large. I think that object will sink even though it is small because it is very heavy for its size.

WHERE DOES EDUCATION FIT IN? Well, it doesn’t? You cannot teach conservation tasks Knowledge cannot precede readiness

The purpose of this study is to investigate if children are cognitively at the stage that is required of them by the curriculum. It is thought that if children show high level of performance on specified Piagetian conservation tasks it will positively impact their ability to calculate density and explain in their own language what it means for one object to be more or less dense than another, as required by the 6th grade science curriculum.

QUESTIONS THAT DRIVE THE STUDY: 1. Why are students struggling in science initially as they

enter middle school, and why do they continue to struggle? Are educators trying to build a foundation of basic science concepts that students are not ready to complete on their own cognitive level?

2. Does the completion of specified Piagetian tasks allow a child to have entered the early formal operational period of thought, required for middle school science tasks such as the concept and calculation of density?

3. Are there significant patterns of differences between ages?

4. Do the ages in which a student can complete Piagetian tasks of conservation match the ages that Piaget originally identified, or have these ages changed?

WHY THESE QUESTIONS TO BEGIN WITH? PISA testing results

In the lower half of all participating countries since 2000, with the exception of reading in 2009, at 14th out of 34 countries That was the U.S.’s BEST performance

Increased Standardized Testing, yet lower performances Predicted that 80% of students would not earn a

passing mark on standardized tests in 2014 Curriculum Standards requiring early use of

abstract thought and “hurrying” children to catch up to the world

http://standardizedtests.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=4346

HYPOTHESIS The curriculum of the American school

system is not adequately preparing students for success because it does not teach to the level in which students are ready to learn. The curriculum is not based on the level of the student, but instead is based on where the level of the student is being hurried to perform at causing the student to be focused on attaining “right” and “correct” answers, instead of building cognition. Through the use of Piagetian Conservation Tasks, a student’s “readiness” for abstract concepts and application of knowledge can be determined.

WHAT I DID: A Variety of Tasks

Task 1- Conservation of weight Task 2- Cylinder Task and Analysis Task 3- Conservation of weight without

conservation of volume Task 4

1- Floating vs. Sinking Foil- predictions and analysis 2- Golf Ball vs. Ping Pong Ball- predictions and analysis 3- Define Density 4- calculate Density 5- what do numbers mean?

HOW RESPONSES WERE RECORDED:

Student # ______________ Age: ____________ Grade as of Fall 2012 ________ TASK Question Response Numerical

Value Assigned

1 (A)Do the 2 balls of clay weigh the same? 1 (B)Does the hot dog shape weigh more/less/the same as the ball? 2 (A)Do the 2 cylinders weigh the same? 2 (B)Did you see the water level rise? 2 (C)Prediction: How will the water change with the second cylinder

compared to the first?

2 (D) What happened and why after the heavier object was dropped in?

3 (A) Do the marble and the standard weight weigh the same? 3 (B) Did you see the water level rise when the standard mass was

dropped?

3 (C ) Prediction of how the water level will change with the marble? 3 (D) What happened when the marble was dropped in the water and

why?

4 (A) Prediction: What do you think the difference will be between the flat piece of foil and the ball of foil when both are put in the water?”

4 (B)What happened to both pieces of foil and why? 4 (C ) Prediction: Will a golf ball and Styrofoam ball act the same way

as each other in the water?

4 (D) What happened to each object and why?

4 (E ) Define Density: 4 (F) Calculated denity of golf ball: 4 (G) Calculated density of Styrofoam ball : 4 (H) Why are the numbers so different, what can you conclude about

these 2 numbers?

HOW DATA WAS ASSIGNED NUMERICAL VALUE:

Numerical Values for Questions 2C, 2D, 3C, 3D, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F&G, 4H Numerical Value Assigned

General Description of Possible Answers Level of Cognitive Development

0 Incorrect prediction, reasoning, or response all together that does not show at least 1 dimension (physical property) of thought. Ex. Include “I don’t know”, “Uhhhh”, “I don’t know how.” Answers may also be given in relation to benefits of the child. “It sinks so I can dive and get it.”

This level of thinking is characteristic of the preoperational stage, in which the child is still using tactile interactions to build their schemas about the world around them. The child has not had enough interactions to be able to make predictions on any basis and is not yet capable of thinking in terms of an object having weight or volume.

1 A decision is made in the form of an observation or prediction, in which the reasoning is based on illogical terms, but an attempt is made: “It must sink because all heavy things sink.” Wavering or conflict between two reasons that appear to be contradictory or confusing to the child are given: “It could be the weight, or the volume, maybe the weight”. Or, response is given in only 1 dimension of thought : “ Only because of an object’s weight without consideration of the volume.”

This level of thinking is characteristic of the concrete operational stage, in which the child has mastered conservation and understands that an object can be manipulated in its physical attributes, without changing the substance. Children in this stage, however, still rely heavily on tactile interaction in order to explain what is occurring. Children in this stage may not yet to understand how two components interact, and often find themselves struggling with which component is at fault, when in actuality, it is the interaction of both (weight and volume that makes an object float or sink).

2 Students will make observations in which two dimensions of thought are addressed, as well as their interactions with one another. Students are able to makes hypotheses based on two dimensional thought (weight and volume together) and address the interaction of these two components of objects. Although the prediction may not always be the actual result, it has a logical base and the actual outcome can be correctly deduced by the individual.

This level of thinking, the highest level according to Piaget, is characteristic of the formal operational stage, in which individuals have reduced the conflict of two dimensional thought and have assimilated schemas to the point where hypothetical suggestions can be made based on logical thought patterns. The person (child) at this stage no longer required to have tactile interactions, but can logically partake in abstract thought.

WHAT I FOUND:Student

# Student

Age Student Grade

Fall 2012

TASK 1 (1B) Conservation

of Weight Mastered?

0=no, 2=Yes

TASK 2 (2C) Prediction

for conservation

of volume

TASK 2 (2D) Analysis of Results for

Conservation of Volume

TASK 3 (3C) Prediction for

different volumes with

the same mass

TASK 3 (3D) Analysis of different

volumes with the same mass

1 10.25 5 2 0 0.5 0 0 2 10.75 5 2 0 1 0 2 3 10.75 5 2 0 0 2 2 4 10.75 5 2 0.5 1.5 2 2 5 11.16 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 11.42 6 0 0 1.5 2 2 7 11.92 6 2 0 2 2 2 8 12.16 7 2 1 2 2 1 9 13.0 8 2 0 1 0 0 10 13.0 8 2 2 2 2 1 11 13.16 8 2 0 2 1 2 12 13.83 8 2 0 1 0 2 13 13.92 8 2 0 1 0 1 14 14.03 8 2 0 1 1.5 1 15 14.03 8 2 0 2 1 1 16 16.66 11 2 0 1.5 0 2 17 46.92 BS and

MBA 2 1.5 2 1 2

WHAT I FOUND:Table 2: Task 4 Floating vs. Sinking

Student #

Student Age

Student Grade

Fall 2012

TASK 4 (4A) Prediction

between flat foil and foil ball

TASK 4 (4B) Analysis of floating vs sinking foil

TASK 4 (4C) Prediction between

golf ball and ping pong ball

TASK 4 (4D) Analysis of floating ball vs.

sinking ball

1 10.25 5 1 0 1 0 2 10.75 5 1 0 2 2 3 10.75 5 0.5 0 1.5 2 4 10.75 5 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 5 11.16 5 1 0 1 1 6 11.42 6 1.5 0 1 1 7 11.92 6 0 0 1 1 8 12.16 7 1 1 1 1 9 13.0 8 0 0 1 1 10 13.0 8 0 0 1 1 11 13.16 8 0 2 1 1 12 13.83 8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 13 13.92 8 0 1 1 1 14 14.03 8 1 1 1 1 15 14.03 8 2 1.5 1.5 2 16 16.66 11 0.5 1 1 1 17 46.92 BS and

MBA 1.5 1 1.5 2

WHAT I FOUND:Table 3: Task 4- Density Tasks

Student #

Student Age

Student Grade Fall 2012

TASK 4 (4E) Define Density

TASK 4 (4 F &G) Calculate Density

TASK 4 (4H) Analysis of

numerical value of densities

1 10.25 5 0 0 0 2 10.75 5 1 0 1 3 10.75 5 1 2 1.5 4 10.75 5 1 0 2 5 11.16 5 1 0 0 6 11.42 6 1 2 1 7 11.92 6 0 1.5 1 8 12.16 7 2 2 2 9 13.0 8 1 2 1 10 13.0 8 1 2 1 11 13.16 8 2 1.5 1.5 12 13.83 8 1 2 1.5 13 13.92 8 1 2 1 14 14.03 8 1 2 1 15 14.03 8 1 2 1 16 16.66 11 1 2 1 17 46.92 BS and MBA 1 2 2

WHAT I FOUND:Table 4: Averages of Each Task Segment and Overall Average

Student #

Student Age

Student Grade

Fall 2012

Average Task 1

Average Task 2

Average Task 3

Average Task 4 (Foil)

Average Task 4 (Balls)

Average Task 4

(Density)

Overall Average

1 10.25 5 2 0.25 0 0.5 1 0 0.32 2 10.75 5 2 0.5 1 0.5 2 0.66 0.91 3 10.75 5 2 0 2 0.25 1.75 1.5 1.14 4 10.75 5 2 1 2 1.25 1.5 1 1.32 5 11.16 5 0 0 0 0.5 1 0.3 0.36 6 11.42 6 0 0.75 2 0.75 1 1.33 1.18 7 11.92 6 2 1.5 2 0 1 0.83 0.95 8 12.16 7 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 2 1.45 9 13.0 8 2 0.5 0 0 1 1.3 0.64 10 13.0 8 2 2 1.5 0 1 1.33 1.18 11 13.16 8 2 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.6 1.27 12 13.83 8 2 0.5 1 1.5` 1.5 1.5 1.23 13 13.92 8 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1.33 0.82 14 14.03 8 2 0.5 1.25 1 1 1.3 1.05 15 14.03 8 2 0.5 1 1.75 1.75 1.33 1.36 16 16.66 11 2 0.75 1 0.25 1 1.33 0.99 17 46.92 BS and

MBA 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1.75 1.66 1.59

CORRELATIONS:

Yes88%

No12%

Graph 1: Percent of Students Who are able to Conserve

Weight (all ages)

Prediction

Analysis

Overall Avg

CORRELATIONS

Prediction of Foil

Analysis of Foil

Prediction of balls

Analysis of balls

CORRELATIONS

CORRELATIONS

CORRELATIONS:

CORRELATIONS:

WHAT I FOUND OUT: Students are performing on a mid-concrete

level at best Prediction levels were poor (formal stage),

analysis after partaking in the task was at a higher level (concrete)

Use of vocabulary without understanding of vocabulary

Students showed progression towards formal thought with grade and age Later than Piaget suggested

6th graders performing at a solid concrete level, 8th graders between concrete and formal

WHAT THIS MEANS: Curriculum is demanding formal operational level…but

the students are not ready Hypothesis, abstract methods, abstract concepts Density is based on two dimensions Curriculum is focused on right vs. wrong answers, not

getting to the answer PISA performance will continue to be low because students

are not accommodating schema

Lack of tangible interaction, manipulation to create schemas capable of leading to formal operational thought, increases technology which is abstract will continue to compound disconnect

Hurrying and not building foundations

HYPOTHESIS TRUE OR FALSE? TRUE!

Students are not ready to handle the demands of the curriculum in the way that it is presented

Data from the research supported that most students are still operating at or near a concrete level:

5th = 0.81 very early concrete 6th = 1.07 concrete 7th = 1.45 between concrete and formal operational 8th = 1.08 concrete 11th =0.99 concrete Adult = 1.59 transitioning to formal

Students are ready for the analysis of actions!

Students are capable- just not yet Can present the concepts, but teachers need to give experiences and

present abstract concepts in tangible ways and offer time for discussion and discovery

Take pressure off of the “right” answer

REFERENCES Armario, Christine. “Wake Up Call : US Students Trail Global Leaders”. MSNBC, The Associated Press,

December 7, 2010. Web. June 23, 2012. <www.msnbc.msn.com> Berger, Carl. “A Piagetian Like Task Considering the Double Variables of Mass and Volume by Preservice

and Inservice Elementary School Science Teachers.” University of Michigan, presented and the National Association of Research in Science Teaching. Web:

www.personal.umich.edu/cberger/marbles_water.html, 6/11/12 Blake, Anthony and Anton Lawson and Floyd Norland. “Piagetian Tasks Clarified: The use of Metal

Cylinders.” The American Biology Teacher April 194: 209-211. Crain, William. Theories of Development Concepts and Applications, 4th edition. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall. 2000. Inhelder, Barbel and Jean Piaget. The Growth of Logical Thinking: From Childhood to Adolescence.

United States: Basic Books, Inc., 1958. Or France: Presses Universitairies de France Inhelder, Barbel and Jean Piaget. The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1969. “Is the use of Standardized Tests Improving Education in America.” ProCon.org, 14 Sept, 2011. Web. 23 June 2012. <http://Standardizedtests.procon.org> Lefton, Lester. Interactive Psychology Online. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. OECD Statistics (PISA results, 2003, 2006, 2009). “OECD Statistics (GDP, Unemployment, Education, Income…).” Oecd, Dec. 2004, 2007, 2010. Web. 23 June 2012.< http://stats.oec.org> “Piagetian Tasks Conservation of Number, Mass and Weight”. Introduction of Early Childhood Studies. Ohlone College, 2007. Web. 12 June 2012. <www2.ohlone.edu/people> “Piaget’s Theory of Conservation: When One Cup of Water is Less Than One Cup of Water.” Science

Buddies. Science Buddies, 10 Nov. 2009. Web. 8 June 2012. <www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/Project_ideas?HumBeh_p049.shtml>

Zwiers, Jeff. Building Reading Comprehension Habits in Grades 6-12: A Toolkit of Classroom Activities. Newark: International Reading Association, Inc. 2010.