Running head: RESEARCH STUDY 1

Conservation of liquid (An Experimental Study)

[Name of the Writer]

[Institution Name]
RESEARCH STUDY 2

Conservation of liquid (An Experimental Study)

Introduction

Amongst the most significant aspects of understanding, the children development is the

study of the cognitive theory. The cognitive theory is of great significance since it provides

insight into the development of learning, morality, analytical approach and language. Thus, a

detailed knowledge of the cognitive development can allow educators and parents to

communicate with the children in a better way and to help the children in their skills

development that are suitable for the better psychological growth of the children (Bjorklund and

Ellis, 2014). All the teachers and parents undergo the quandary of finding out the appropriate

time to begin teaching the children. The theory of cognitive development by Jean Piaget states

that children undergo an era of different stages throughout which they develop the cognitive

approach. The Piagets theory groups the child development into four stages according to the

childrens age. These are the phases of child development during which interactions with the

natural world and human beings is essential for the cognitive development of the child

(Bjorklund, 1989).

Piagets Theory

The four phases of Piaget's theory are the sensorimotor phase (0-2 years), the

preoperational phase (2-7 years), the concrete operational stage (7-12 years), and the formal

operation stage (12-adulthood) (Bjorklund, 1989). The Piagets theory states that, during the pre-

operational phase, children utilize cognitive representations, for instance; gestures, words,

drawings and mental images, more willingly than only motor actions to reflect the events and
RESEARCH STUDY 3

objects. Children during the preoperational stage tend to think quickly, efficiently and flexible,

and more with the people and surroundings. The thinking of the children during this stage is

narrowed because of egocentrism, entirely focused on noncognitive states, depending on the

shape and size rather than underlying actuality, and the failure to understand reversibility

(Bonawitz, Denison, Griffiths, and Gopnik, 2014). According to Piaget, children during their

preoperational stages were unable to succeed in their conservation tasks, since they lacked the

knowledge of conservation. The meaning of conservation in this context is to comprehend that

some substantial characteristics of objects stay unchanged, regardless of their changes in the

external appearance. The conservation tasks by Piaget involve experiments for the conservation

of liquid, number, and solid. In Piagets opinion, children during the concrete phase are capable

of easily solving the issues encountered in the conservation test owing to their cognitive

improvement (Barrouillet, 2015).

The Conservation of Liquid Experiment

In the conservation of liquid experiment, Piaget set two glasses in front of children and

poured water into them; he allowed the children to believe that the water was distributed in the

same proportion in the two glasses and was in fact equal. After this assessment, Piaget took one

of the glasses and poured the water into a longer much thinner glass, this time the children

assessed the water to be distributed in unequal proportion; however, it was still the same.

Through this Piaget concluded that children in the pre-operational stages have a thinking which

is perception bound and cannot analyze situations with more than one aspect as their attention

can only be focused on one single aspect (Crossland, 2017).

RESEARCH STUDY 4

It is made clear that the children who are in the pre-operational stages cannot succeed at

these tasks, by the two studies on Piagets conversation tasks. In a recent research, it is shown

that 20 kids, aged between six and seven, concerning the concept of the area failed, were put to

Piagets task. While the non-conserving children were able to only focus on one dimension of the

problem twenty other children who were eight-year-olds were able to solve the task by applying

the additive rule. Another study focused on children, attempted to find a link between

conservation and children learning in different cultures. It was discovered that the children that

had access to schools had quite a comparable edge in abilities to their counterparts that lived in

non-school settings. It was concluded by the study that children were not able to go past the

unidimensional level when it came to their central conceptual structures. It was also stated by the

research that this unidimensional level is universal and is the standard (Siegal, 2013).

All of these findings helped the research in concluding that if a particular task is valued

by culture, then that culture should make efforts and put time into teaching that task, which will

then result in children successfully accomplishing those tasks. Piagets studies are conclusive

and prove that children are not successful in completing Piagets task; however, the research

contradicts this as he states that if enough effort and time is put into making children practice

these tasks, they will succeed (Barrouillet, 2015).

After an in-depth review of Piagets study, an experiment was set up by me to accurately

imitate Piagets liquid conservation experiment. The following experiment will primarily test and

review the idea that 8-year-olds can accurately solve these conservation tasks while 5-year-olds

cannot. The major goal of my experiment will be to review and test Piagets belief that children

who are at a pre-operational stage cannot take into account more than one aspect of a problem as

they cannot do so hence, not being able to solve these conservation tasks.
RESEARCH STUDY 5

Method

The participants included in this experiment are two children of ages four and five, the

boy named John and the girl named Katrina, who in Piagets opinion are going through their

preoperational phase and will not be successful at the liquid task that is going to be presented to

them. Before presenting the test to John and Katrina, the experiment was prepared in line with

the method that Piaget used.

For the liquid measure test, two glasses were taken with same size, shape, and color. The

glasses were filled with water at the same level and were placed on the bench. Next, another

glass was taken, apart from it was thinner and longer in comparison with the two other glasses

used initially. John and Katrina were asked to observe the two similar glasses filled with water

and judge that if both the glasses contained the similar quantity of water and both the participants

answered yes." Once the answer was noted from the children, water was taken from one of the

similar glasses and poured it in the thinner and longer glass. Once the glass was changed, John

and Katrina were asked if the glasses still had the exact quantity of water and the both

participants replied that the thinner and taller glass contained more amount of water. Until this

part of the experimentation, the responses from John and Katrina had no surprises, both the

participants had fully concentrated while Piaget's tests were performed. The inspiration of getting

a gift in return of participation in the experiment may have played a crucial part in their honest

responses and complete concentration.

Results

By Piagets prediction, the outcomes of the experiment were replicating his research and

also the results proved Piagets theory of stages as John and Katrina were not able to perform the
RESEARCH STUDY 6

tasks. In Piagets opinion, stages or changes in child development are collective and the

outcomes of the experiment carried out with John and Katrina also prove that. However, there is

a probability that it was something regarding the method of the experiment and how it was

performed that might be the reason of the results that occurred. During the task, John and Katrina

saw the items after and before the liquid transformations, and they constantly thought that the

items were changed after the transformation was done.

The placement of John and Katrina in the preoperational phase of Piagets theory shows

that they both were lacking the cognitive aptitude to make it in the liquid experiment. Neither

John nor Katrina was hurried into any decision regarding the experiment tasks and their answers

were based entirely on their cognitive capabilities. Besides, added information was provided

regarding the items included in the experiment or the transformation situation, every question

and procedure was similar in participants case and by evaluating the result, it was concluded

that both John and Katrina were similar to the beliefs of Piaget. Neither John nor Katrina asked

for any clues during the performance of the tasks, and there was no help from the experimenter.

The outcome of the experiment shows that John and Katrina are in the preoperational phase of

the cognitive development.

Discussion

In the discussion, it is apparent that the conservation tasks by Piaget were intended to

create achievement in kids ahead of the preoperational phase. John and Katrina, who participated

in the experiment, showed the exact prediction of Piaget and led the outcomes to illustrate that

the theory of Piaget could be acceptable concerning the cognitive development of the children.

However, this could be 100% accurate if the John and Katrina were positioned in a controlled
RESEARCH STUDY 7

setting throughout their lives and their social exchanges with other individuals were controlled as

well (Bjorklund and Ellis, 2014). If the methods of the experiment are customized in a way that

John and Katrina were capable of performing the task with the person experimenting, the

outcomes may have been dissimilar. John and Katrina may have been involved more in

observing the glasses of liquid after and before the transformation. This involvement act can

permit John and Katrina to effectively carry out their conservation tasks. John and Katrinas

attention, perceptive of the amount of liquid and the practically experiencing the tasks will make

them understand that even after the transformation the amount of water in the glasses did not

change.

Conclusion

The field of development of theory has undoubtedly gained many benefits through

Piagets work. His immediate discipline to affect sociology, psychology, social psychology and a

majority of other fields clearly has no influence on his relevance of work. Although some

criticize his theories, for a better understanding of the complex mechanism of human cognitive

theory, his work remains second to none.

A persons reaction to and perception of interpersonal relationships is the main concern

of social psychology, for a student of social psychology, the best and most relevant area of

inquiry will be the mechanisms of psychological maturation (Bjorklund, 1989). This will provide

a new perspective through which social psychology can be looked at, not only does one need to

understand the development of knowledge, but also understand how knowledge development

interacts and effects with ones interpersonal relationships and socialization to comprehensively

understand the cognitive developmental theorys structure and its major factors.
RESEARCH STUDY 8

References

Barrouillet, P. (2015). Theories of cognitive development: From Piaget to today.

Bjorklund, D. F. (1989). Children's thinking: Developmental function and individual differences.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Ellis, B. J. (2014). Children, childhood, and development in evolutionary

perspective. Developmental Review, 34(3), 225-264.

Bonawitz, E., Denison, S., Griffiths, T. L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Probabilistic models, learning

algorithms, and response variability: sampling in cognitive development. Trends in

cognitive sciences, 18(10), 497-500.

Crossland, J. (2017). Optimal learning in schoolstheoretical evidence: Part 2 Updating

Piaget. School Science Review, 98(364), 77-83.

Siegal, M. (2013). Knowing children: Experiments in conversation and cognition. Psychology

Press.