Wood et al. Flashcards

1
Q

what is the theory?

A

tutor intervention and scaffolding + children being natural problem solvers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is the background?

A

that complete comprehension of the solution must precede production (need to know end goal/ aim)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is the aim?

A

to examine relationship between child and tutor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is the research method?

A

controlled observation in an artificial environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

how long did procedure last?

A

20 mins to 1 hour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is the sample?

A

30 children
- x10 3,4, and 5 year olds (5 f and 5m)
- middle class families
- Cambridge USA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is the sampling technique?

A

volunteer - parents responded to ad

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what is the task?

A

to build a pyramid consisting of 21 blocks (9x9 square base, 6 layers, 4 pieces per layer with 2 interlocking)
- peg and hole (all pegs fit in all holes = easy to get wrong)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what is the tutoring procedure?

A
  • close to standardised as possible
  • female tutor
  • child left alone with all 21 pieces jumbled for 5 mins
  • tutor only helps if child stops and stuggles
  • puts together 2 pieces and says “make some more like this one”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what is the system of scoring?

A
  • correct or incorrect construction
  • assisted or unassisted construction
  • interventions e.g., direct assistance (modelling), verbal prompt, or straightforward verbal attempt (“make some more like this one”)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what was the inter-rater reliability?

A

94%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what were some observations from the tutorials?

A
  • older children did better at producing the larger number of correct constructions
  • older children also less likely to deconstruct
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what were the tutorial relationships like?

A

3 year olds often ignored the tutor with (112 rejections and 4 / 5 year olds with virtually none) despite needing the most help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what was the median for all ages for total amount of help received?

A

3- 20.0
4- 19.0
5- 3.5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what type of tutoring was the most effective?

A

showing
3= 40% 4= 63% and 5=80%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what were the total interventions for the children?

A

3- 201
4- 198
5- 112

17
Q

what is the key analysis of the tutoring?

A

in the 478 opportunities for standardisation it was followed 86% of time for 4 year olds and 92% for 3 year olds - suggests that 4 year olds have the most unstructured behaviour

18
Q

how come some of the findings be applied to education?

A
  • 3 year olds and discovery learning
  • 4 year olds and individual responses from tutors
  • 5 year olds benefit most from tutor
19
Q

what are some conclusions?

A
  • the older the child the more successful the problem solver
  • older children were more prepared to accept (and act on) tutor advice
20
Q

evaluate according to reliability?

A

strengths:
- standardised protocol / procedure e.g., same task (21 block pyramid) = internal reliability
- high inter-rater reliability (94%)
- replicable procedure
weaknesses:
- tutor protocol not always followed
- lacks external validity e.g., male tutor, different volunteers, different task
- observation makes subjective = less reliable (lacks internal reliability)

21
Q

evaluate according to validity

A

strengths:
- high control = construct validity = causality
- mundane realism (pyramid building = IRL task children would do)
weaknesses:
- lacks population validity (small, culture bias sample)
- lacks ecological validity (artificial environment)
- tutor = stranger/ female may have impacted behaviour

22
Q

evaluate according to data

A

BOTH types collected (so strengths and weaknesses of both apply)
e.g., the quan data collected is objective and not impacted by researcher bias BUT the qual data is nomothetic and there may be individual differences

23
Q

evaluate according to samples and ethnocentrism

A

strengths:
- 3,4,5 year olds = cross sectional - can see changes with age
- no gender bias (male and female used)
- volunteer sample = easy to obtain
weaknesses:
- culture bias (USA) = ethnocentric - only provides western view on development with tutor
- volunteer samples = only certain type of parent (smart children etc.)

24
Q

evaluate according to methodology

A

strengths:
- snapshot has no EVs impacting
-more scientific
- quicker and cheaper
weaknesses:
- participant variables / individual differences

25
Q

evaluate according to ethics and socially sensitive

A

strengths:
- short = PFH
- confidentiality
- informed consent given by parents
- free will
weaknesses:
- no RTW
- no consent from children
- Piaget = deterministic (maturation)
- tutors may not be accessible in other places due to expense/ class / ability

26
Q

evaluate according to usefulness and practical applications

A

strengths:
- scaffolding helpful fro teachers e.g., discovery play for 4 year olds - know how to support students better
- readiness impacted national curriculum
weaknesses:
- individual differences make less applicable to some students e.g., SEN students
- ethnocentric makes harder to practically apply outside of western cultures

27
Q

evaluate according to psychology as a science

A

scientific:
- deterministic
- standardisation / reliability
- construct validity
- quan data
- manipulation of variables
- falsifiable
- controlled setting = replicable
not scientific:
- qual data
- free will
- observations = subjective = lack causality
- no IV = cannot establish causality

28
Q

evaluate according to reductionism vs holism

A

reductionist:
- focused on situational/ nurture - tutor therefore don’t know dispositional impacts on tutoring such as autism or culture
- oversimplification of age and tutor
holistic:
- considers both nature and nurture

29
Q

evaluate according to determinism vs free will

A

free will:
- responses to tutor based on individual child e.g., 4 year olds unstructured responses
- discovery learning
- individual differences e.g., some children like problem solving
determinism:
- environmental determinism - suggests that interaction with others will aid cognitive development
- Piaget’s fixed stages
- type of parenting

30
Q

evaluate according to nature vs nurture

A

nature:
- cognitive abilities develop with maturation (Piaget)
nurture:
- highlights need for interaction with others (tutor) to aid learning process
- Vygotsky and scaffolding (zone of proximal development)

31
Q

evaluate according to dispositional vs situational

A

dispositional:
- Piaget = ignores individual differences
situational:
- recognises how situations help cog development (tutor)