& # 8217 ; s Conservation Tasks Essay, Research Paper

I. Introduction

Lori is four twelvemonth old, and she is at Piaget? s preoperational phase. Harmonizing to Piaget? s description of the preoperational phase kids, they can non understand his preservation undertakings. This preoperational phase, ? kids can utilize representations ( mental images, drawings, words, gestures ) instead than merely motor actions to believe about objects and events. Thinking now is faster, more flexible and efficient, and more socially shared. Thinking is limited by egoism, a focal point on perceptual provinces, trust on visual aspects instead than underlying worlds, and rigidness ( deficiency of reversibility ) ? ( Flavell, Miller, 1993 ) . The immature kids do non hold abilities to hold? operations mental actions that obey logical regulations. Alternatively, their thought is stiff, limited to one facet of a state of affairs at a clip, and strongly influenced by the manner things appear at the minute? ( Berk, 1999 ) . Harmonizing to Piagetian preservation undertakings, preoperational phase: 2-7 old ages old kids lacked the cognition to conserve. Conservation means, ? the apprehension that certain physical features of objects remain the same, even when their outward visual aspect alterations? ( Berk, 1999 ) . Piaget? s trial for preservation of figure is described as two rows with same figure of things ( illustrations: coins, fruits, and confects that are every bit spaced. Initially, immature kids knew these two rows had same figure. If one row is shortened, kids failed to detect that the two rows are the same. Piaget said immature kids did non recognize these two rows are still the same figure because they confused and did non see what grownups see that assist them to understand the undertaking. Piaget said the ability to understand this undertaking is? in the face of a perceptual alteration, ? and the? immature kid tends to be fooled by the deceptive perceptual visual aspect? ( Flavell, Miller, 1993 ) . On the Piaget? s undertaking for preservation of length, he described this undertaking as demoing immature kids the two pencils, two pens, or two sticks with the equal length and kids knew they were the same length. If showed them by traveling one stick longer than the other one, they failed to cognize they were the same. Then Piaget? s undertaking for preservation for liquid, he described this undertaking as demoing immature kids the same sum of H2O or juice in the two indistinguishable spectacless and really fast they knew the two spectacless of H2O or juice were the same. If poured one glass into a longer and dilutant glass, kids could non place this glass had contained the same sum of H2O or juice as the original two indistinguishable spectacless. Harmonizing to Piaget? s account, kids? s thought is? perceptual experience edge? in preoperational phase and besides they could non concentrate their attending on two facets of the new glass, they were attentive merely to one facet which is that one glass is taller than the other two ; they did non recognize the taller glass had the same sum of liquid.

II. Subject and Method

My topic is a four-year-old miss named Lori. She was born in California. I have known her since she was a babe. On weekends, I babysat Lori and her small brother, Mike, at my house. When Lori was about two old ages old, I taught her how to read a short Chinese verse form. She could retrieve the verse form without looking at it and recited in forepart of his parents and me. She was so funny about anything that she ever had many? what and why? inquiries to inquire. I was frequently inspired by her because she would come toward me and gave me the biggest clinch and do me felt happy. Recently her parents sent her to a kid twenty-four hours care centre to be with other kids that teaches merely in English and she is frightened and frustrated. Because at place, her parents spoke merely Chinese to her and she didn? Ts know any English, she felt no merriment in school. I had invited her to come to my house, so I could speak to her and comforted her. Since I knew I taught her how to number and cognize she had good memory, I decided to prove Lori on Piagetian preservation undertakings because she was so absorbing. Lori was besides really interested because she loved to play with me.

III. Procedures

My alterations in Piaget? s preservation undertakings are as follow: foremost, I had Lori? s full attending to what I was making at each measure because when Piaget did his preservation undertakings, he was non cognizant of whether the kid? s attending was focused on his waies and his accounts of the undertakings ( Berk, 1999 ) . Second, to hold Lori? s attending on what I was traveling to demo her, I needed to do Lori interested in the undertakings. I believe immature kids like Lori need to be given touchable wagess. I used these undertakings as some types of wagess Lori could take place with her after she did the undertakings with me. Third, Lori needed to hold easy numerical constructs, so she could understand when I showed her the measuring of the undertakings. And the last alteration, I had Lori experienced these undertakings with me. I had her felt the undertakings by touch and do the undertakings with me. Therefore, immature kids need custodies on experience with these undertakings, so they can believe more logically as they follow Ts

he processes.

Conservation of Number:

I followed Piaget? s preservation of figure undertaking foremost with Lori and without utilizing my alterations, and of class Lori gave a incorrect reply. She did non pay attending to me at all and she was funny about why I showed her the undertaking and her head was inquiring off someplace. I could non acquire her to concentrate on the undertakings at all. Mentioning to Piaget? s experiment, I set two rows of 10 buttons each in ocular one-to-one correspondence, with one of the two equal-length rows placed straight above the other and have Lori agreed the two rows did hold the equal-length. After that I moved the first row to look longer than the 2nd row, Lori did non detect I had moved the first row. She saw merely the first row now longer than the 2nd row therefore she concludes the first row has more buttons than the 2nd row. Piaget would explicate Lori in preoperational phase, ? tends to fooled by the deceptive perceptual visual aspect, judging that the longer row now contains more? and that is why Lori failed the preservation of figure ( Flavell, Miller, 1993 ) .

Conservation of Liquid:

In preservation of liquid, I besides started with Piaget? s experience, Lori foremost agreed that two indistinguishable spectacless contain the same sums of H2O, and I pour H2O from one glass into the taller and dilutant glass, with Lori observation, and so inquire Lori whether the two sums of H2O are still the same, or whether one glass now contains more H2O than the other. In this experiment, Lori would state the taller and dilutant glass contains more H2O than the other 1. Because to Piaget, kids at this preoperational phase could non understand preservation of liquid, they merely see the taller and dilutant glass? looks like it has more, and accept things as they seem to be? ( Flavell, Miller, 1993 ) .

IV. Consequences

To modify this preservation of figure, I like to utilize confect for this undertaking because is more merriment and involvement for Lori. She loves M & A ; M confects. For this undertaking, I had Lori sit near to the tabular array so she could see me put up two rows of M & A ; M confects, and hear me number aloud each row that had seven pieces of confects on the tabular array. When I foremost showed Lori, I put both the Numberss of confects and the lengths of the two rows equaled. I ask Lori to state me if the two rows had the same sum of confects, and she told me these two rows were the same. She showed me by numbering each row right, like this, ? one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, ? and I told her to touch each confect as she counted, and she did the same to the 2nd row. Then I mixed the confects and I ask her to copy what I did last clip. Lori did the two rows with equal sum of the confects because she remembered each row had seven confects. Again I ask her to look at the confects in these two rows if they were the same, and once more she told me they were the same. Then I set up another set of confects with the same sum that I did with the first set. I ask Lori if I had the same two rows as her and she told me, ? yes! ? I showed her by traveling the first row of confects further apart from each piece and inquire her to make the same with the first rows she had and told her to number the confects in each row. She had counted them right. After that, I ask her the same inquiry once more and her reply is? they are the same. ?

To modify this preservation of liquid, I had Lori assist me blend the coloured fruit juice and pour into the two precisely similar spectacless. Lori was so happy that she learned to do juice, and she was really involvement in the changed colour of the H2O. Again I tried to hold Lori? s involvement, so she could concentrate on this undertaking. I used the step cup to hold Lori identifies the Numberss two on the cup so the two spectacless had the same sum of juice and pour into them. I ask her are these two spectacless had same sum of colour fruit juice and her reply was? yes, there are the same. ? Then I ask her to assist me pouring the juice from one glass to the taller and dilutant glass before that I have her to mensurate the juice and it showed on figure two. I ask her the inquiry once more, and she knew instantly the taller and dilutant glass has the same sum of juice as the 1 that look smaller.

V. Conclusion

In decision, Piaget would still see Lori is excessively immature to successfully carry through his preservation undertakings. But in my alteration, I had show the significantly better on Lori? s ability to make the undertaking right. Lori? s attending, understanding the construct of Numberss and the custodies on experiences on the undertakings made her realize that the outside visual aspects changed did non intend the alteration of the undertakings. Based on the experiments, immature kids like Lori ( preoperational phase ) do conserve the figure and do conserve the liquid really early in life reverse to the Piaget? s theory of phases and his undertakings.

Flavell, J.M. , Miller, P.H. , & A ; Miller, S.A. ( 1993 ) . Cognitive Development. ( 3rd ed. ) . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Laura E. Berk. ( 1999 ) . Babies and Children. ( 3rd ed. ) . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & A ; Bacon