Operations as an advanced problem solving scheme CATEGORIZATION Categorization

Operations as an advanced problem solving scheme

This preview shows page 9 - 11 out of 11 pages.

Operations as an advanced problem solving scheme CATEGORIZATIONCategorization inability oBasic failure to understand the structure of classes and subclasses Structure and logic of classes oOne thing can belong to multiple classes oToo hard to think of one thing being several things at once – poodle is a small dogSubclass < superordinate classoThere can’t be more dogs than there are petsClass Inclusion Tasks - Piageto20 wooden beads: 10 red, 10 white. Child centres on color, failing to conserve the textures/wooden of beads. Doesn’t understand the subclass (colour) and superordinate class (wooden)CRITIQUES: UNDERESTIMATIONEgocentrism (aka lack of Theory of mind) o2-3 year olds adjust to others’ perspective in some situations oAdapt speech to play mate (talk slower if their younger) and play (gentle with younger kids)o4-5 y/o pass the Sally-Anne Task Anne takes Sally’s ball from Sally’s box to her own after Sally had left. Child can tell Sally will look into her own when she comes back.Conservation Task have cultural Variation CONCRETE OPERATIONAL STAGEACCOMPLISHMENTSSophisticated schemas – mental operationsAbility to decenter, properly categorize and understand class inclusion, as well as conservations oConservation tasksUnderstand reversibility – conservationDecreased egocentrism SHORTCOMINGSLogic can only be applied to concrete, real-world object and events Can’t solve abstract problems oCan’t do math in their head or solve problems without pictures Can’t handle contrary-to-fact premises oFeather broke the glass – impossible
Background image
Poor systematic problem solving oHow several variables are related together FORMAL OPERATIONAL STAGE (11 +) ACHIEVEMENTSHypthetico-deductive (abstract) reasoning oCan imagine hypothetical things oDon’t have to rely on concrete examplesoE.g. algebra, “who is tallest” problem, Contrary-to-fact problems – third eye premise Systematic problem solving oExperimentation holding variables constant oPiaget’s (1958) pendulum task Failed – was too hard from every one other than Swiss kidsWould have kids build a pendulum with different lengths of strings and different sizes of bobs which of these things determines the quickness of the swing of the pendulum Formal operational kids would keep all things constant and then try all the variables changing only one variable – systematic approach CRITIQUESBasic observation confirmed Did Piaget overestimate attainment of Formal Operational?oMartorano (1977)See what % of what grades can solve itG6 – 20%, G12 – 50%Piaget realized pendulum task was difficult Is the Pendulum Task a good measure of Formal Operational Ability?
Background image
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 11 pages?

  • Fall '13
  • Dr.J.M.Ostovich

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture