Cognition

Question 0

Piaget

Answer 0

Child shown a toy which was then covered; 9 months removed cloth. Object permanence.

Question 1

Goswami (88)

Answer 1

Key questions of cognitive development:

What develops and why does development take place?

Question 2

Bower & Wishart (72)

Answer 2

4 month year old baby held arms out for teddy, did the same when the lights were turned off. Piaget may have overestimated age of object permanence.

Question 3

Piaget & Inhelder (67)

Answer 3

Children shown model of 3 mountains, doll placed on the model and children asked to describe its view. Given pictures and asked to pick doll’s POV.
Under 7 couldn’t do it - egocentric.
Doesn’t meet criteria of experiment - no manipulation of IV.
Donaldson (78) - failed because they didn’t understand the task/

Question 4

Piaget

Answer 4

Liquids into different containers, pre-operational thought was different amount - inability to conserve.
Learn conservation of number before mass - horizontal décalage.

Question 5

Piaget

Answer 5

A>B, B>C, pre-operational can’t understand A>C. Seriation.

Question 6

Piaget

Answer 6

Picture cards - 5 horses, 3 pigs. Until age 7 couldn’t answer “are there more animals or more horses?” - Class inclusion tasks.

Question 7

Piaget

Answer 7

Speed of pendulum; 11/12 systematically tested on factor at a time. Formal operational.

Question 8

Donaldson

Answer 8

Young children capable of more than Piaget suggests, but there understanding is ‘embedded’ in everyday situations in which they use context for help.

Question 9

Hughes (75)

Answer 9

Children shown a model room with 4 sections, doll looking into 2 of them. 90% could put dolls where the other couldn’t see - hide & seek. Piaget’s tasks lacked human sense.

Question 10

Paul Light

Answer 10

95% of 6 y.o. failed to conserve, but 70% could when told the beaker had a sharp chip so needed to be changed - context.

Question 11

Siegler (95)

Answer 11

Used ‘microgenetic’ method to study 5 y.o. who failed button experiment.
3 groups: Feedback group were told if they were right or wrong, Explanation group were asked to justify actions and told if right or wrong, Discussion group told the right answer and asked “Why do you think I know that?”
Retested of Piagetian task after training sessions. More of discussion group conserved, understood length did not predict number.
Combines quantitive (control of IV) and qualitative (observation) methods.

Question 12

Goswami (98)

Answer 12

Accepted that children can understand and reason at the level of action before the level of representation.

Question 13

Keating (79)

Answer 13

40-60% of college students fail at formal operational tasks.

Question 14

Dasen (94)

Answer 14

A third of adults reach formal operational.

Question 15

Plowden Report (HMSO, 67)

Answer 15

Children seen as individuals, teachers were facilitators who identified child’s stage and decided when they could move to next. Piaget in education.

Question 16

Nunes (92)

Answer 16

Brazilian street children on stalls have no formal education but are good at maths due to working with adults.

Question 17

Wood et al. (75)

Answer 17

Idea of scaffolding - help given to child by a more knowledgable other.

Question 18

Wood & Middleton (76)

Answer 18

Mother asked to teach 4 y.o. to do jigsaw.
5 types of scaffolding: general suggestions, specific verbal instructions, indicating materials, preparing for assembly, physical demonstrations.
Most effective changed up or down levels depending on actions.
Qualitative data, small sample size.

Question 19

Moss (92)

Answer 19

3 strategies for scaffolding with mothers:
Staying one step ahead of child
Discouraging wrong strategies
Reinforcing new useful strategies.

Question 20

Pratt et al. (92)

Answer 20

Discovered scaffolding with older children. Variation in performances of long division.

Question 21

Durkin (95)

Answer 21

Criticised all experiments as parents knew they were being observed.
However, Greenfield & Lave (82) saw Mexican girls learning weaving from older women who gave them tasks to do.

Question 22

Tzuriel & Shamir (2007)

Answer 22

Tested peer mentoring (scaffolding). Year 1 children who couldn’t do seriation task paired with a year 3.
Experimental group mediators taught to sue a mediation teaching style.
Helped year 1 who were retested. Experimental group showed better improvement.
Biggest gains where mismatch between cognitive abilities.
Control group took part in a training programme to avoid Hawthorn type effects.

Question 23

Bruner & Kenney (65)

Answer 23

8 y.o. given different sized blocks, encouraged to play (enactive).
Helped to construct diagrams of different sized squares (iconic)
Shapes given name label, taught to solve equations x+y=z (symbolic)
Young children can work within symbolic mode and generalise experience to new situations.
Uses range of analysis and observation. Important they are not overwhelmed, in school to reduce stress.

Question 24

Wood (88)

Answer 24

Bruner’s theory stands between Piaget and Vygotsky.

Question 25

Adey (02)

Answer 25

Cognitive acceleration through science education (CASE) uses scaffolding & encourages student interaction. Increased number achieving C or above in science GCSEs.

Question 26

Wainryb & Turiel (93)

Answer 26

Criticised Piaget’s use of games - they follow social conventions, not moral rules.

Question 27

Chandler (93)

Answer 27

Presented vignettes in video formant and found that children could present more moral judgement.

Question 28

Kohlberg (63)

Answer 28

Boys 7-16 took part in moral judgement interview (MJI)
Asked to consider moral dilemmas and comment on characters’ actions, justifying answers.
Coded to form Kohlberg’s stages. Coding verbal data is subjective, investigator bias.
MJI is a production test. Recognition tests removes need for coding but gives less rich data and answers reflect experimenter’s expectations.

Question 29

Colby et al. (83)

Answer 29

Longitudinal study of Kohlberg’s participants over 20 years:
Most reached stage 2 by age 10.
Most reached stage 3 or 4 by age 22.
Some were 36 at the end, few had moved onto 5.

Question 30

Kohlberg (69)

Answer 30

Repeated experiment cross-culturally and found similar stages.
Snarey (85) level 3 only found in industrialised societies in very few individuals.
Gibbs (07) supports using 75 cross-cultural studies.

Question 31

Gilligan (82)

Answer 31

Women may reason differently about moral issues but are not less developed. MJI fails to measure female moral thinking.

Question 32

Gilligan (94)

Answer 32

Interviewed women deciding to have an abortion, 3 levels of moral understanding:
Level 1 - Self-interest. Referred to own needs and intentions.
Level 2 - Self-sacrifice. Referred to needs and feelings of others around them.
Level 3 - Care as a universal obligation. Balance between caring for feelings of others and own well-being.
2 kinds of moral orientation:
Justice - doing what is fair
Caring - looking after someone in need.

Question 33

Walker (84)

Answer 33

No gender differences using MJI in 85% of studies.

Question 34

Silberman & Snarey (93)

Answer 34

Girls 11-14 were in higher stages than boys. Also emotionally and physically more developed.

Question 35

Constanza et al. (73)

Answer 35

Redesigned Piaget’s test, pre-schoolers did consider intentions, particularly when the outcome was good.

Question 36

Turiel (93)

Answer 36

Children do not address all problems equally in moral judgement. 2 types of moral understanding:
-Moral domain; ideas about individual rights & how people should be treated
-Social convention domain; rules about living within a social community
Children can separate these and see some are moral transgressions without seeing that some just convene social rules.

Question 37

Eisenberg (83)

Answer 37

Gave 4 sets of moral dilemmas to young children, coded their answers and devised model of pro-social reasoning:

1. Hedonistic reasoning
2. Needs orientation
3. Approval and interpersonal & stereotyped orientation
   4a. Self-reflective empathetic orientation
   4b. Transitional stage
4. Strongly internalise orientation.

Question 38

Wimmer & Perner (1983)

Answer 38

Unexpected transfer task. Dolls and chocolate - where would the first doll look for the chocolate?

Question 39

Perner (1987)

Answer 39

Smarties and pencils. What is in the smartie tube?

What would another child say?

Question 40

Baron-Cohen (1985)

Answer 40

Sallyann doll. Marble in the basket. Where will Sally look for the marble (86% but only 20% Autism)? Where is it really? Where was it in the beginnings? Reality and belief questions.
Autism
Downs
Ages

Question 41

Firth (2001)

Answer 41

Language may have affected results of B-C. Phrasing important.