Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Processactresearch.wikispaces.com/.../Literature+Review+for+A… · Web viewCognitive Development and Children’s ... described

Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process 1

Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process

By

Melanie Perkins

Leslie Lovell

Jennifer Miller

Crystal Dunnermann

Katie Ross

Sandra Scott

Stacy Wegrzyn

David Edgington

Jamie Potts

EDPS 383 The Psychology of Teaching and LearningMrs. Amy Salvo

Spring 2012


Table of Contents


Abstract

The purpose of our study was to determine if age and academic ability levels had an

influence on cognitive development. We hypothesized that those of an older age had a higher

cognitive development than those of a younger age. Also, that those of a higher academic ability

had a higher level of cognitive thinking. Three children were tested; one the age of five and two

the age of eight, who had varying academic abilities. The test score relied upon their range of

cognitive development and the answers varied greatly. The test results showed that age and

academic ability levels do effect a child’s cognitive development. We also were able to

determine that each individual has a different level of cognitive development and thinking.


Background

Introduction:

“It is with children that we have the best chance of studying the development of logical

knowledge, mathematical knowledge, physical knowledge, and so forth.” Jean Piaget

The research being conducted for this project was designed to identify whether age and

academic ability levels had an influence on children’s cognitive development. Our action

research team located a reliable cognitive development test to administer to our selected three

children. The background information on our selected three children is as follows: Student 1 is a

five year old female in kindergarten, Student 2 is an eight year old male in the third grade, and

Student 3 is an eight year old male in the second grade. It was our goal to establish if age and

academic ability levels affected the cognitive development of children.

Statement of Problem:

As teachers, it is important to know that with the span of ages in your room, there is also

going to be a span of cognitive development and thinking. It is our goal to learn how age effects

children’s cognitive development and how to adapt our teaching to meet the needs of all children

in our classroom. By investigating the influence age and academic ability has we will be better

able to identify variances and work to meet the needs of all the cognitive levels in our room.

Need for the Study:

The research implicated in this project was noteworthy to parents, teachers, and support

staff. As teachers we need to understand the impact age plays in cognitive development of

children. It is important to remember the different stages of cognitive development. For these


reasons teachers need to mold their teaching and activities to meet the needs of all their students

on their own unique cognitive level.

Research Questions and Hypothesis:

For this case study, it was our objective to determine the cognitive development of three

different children that are separated by age or academic ability. As a group we believe that this

material will help us in aiding the children we are/will be teaching. It is the belief of this group

that the older children would maintain a higher cognitive level than those younger and out of the

two older children the one of higher academic ability would have higher cognitive thinking

skills.

Limitations and Delamination of the Study:

The results of our tests were concluded with very helpful information of how age affects

the cognitive development of children. The objective of this study was to observe two children

that were the same age and one child at a younger age. The results of the test narrowed because

of the small quantity of children studied and the lack of diversity. The three children chosen

came from similar soco-economic backgrounds. The results could also be limited due to the fact

that the two older children were males and the younger child was a female. The study also

neglected to include any participates with physical disabilities.

Definition of Terms:

Schemes: a set of linked mental representations of the world, which we use both to

understand and to respond to situations

Assimilation: Fitting new information into existing schemes.

Accommodation: Altering existing schemes or creating ones in response to new

information.


Equilibration: Search for mental balance between cognitive schemes and information

from the environment

Summary:

This research project set out to identify whether age and academic ability had an effect on

the cognitive level and thinking skills of children. To test our hypothesis, we ran a series of tests

on three children, two at the age of eight and one at the age of five. The procedure tests run on

the three children consisted of activities that involved interpretation of an Aesop’s fable,

classification of objects, conservation of beads, and combination logic with one-digit numbers.

These test allowed us to determine based on our individual study which children were of higher

cognitive ability.

By performing this research, we will as future educators be aware and sensitive to the

varying cognitive levels that will be present in our classrooms. It will help teachers to

incorporate specific teaching methods, strategies, activities, and atmospheres that will best suit

the students in the classroom individually and at a whole group level. There were a number of

limitations that a raised after the group revved the testing procedure of the study. Although

biases in soco-economic standards and other levels of diversity were found the results show an

introductory level of results which could be carried further into more diverse situations upon

further studying.


Literature Review

Introduction:

This action research project was designed to investigate the way children think in order to

determine their cognitive development levels. The research set out to observe and discover the

varying cognitive levels of thinking for three children. There were two children at the age of

eight, but at varying academic levels and one separate child at five years of age. Upon the

completion of this action research, it is our goal to see how age and academic ability might affect

the children’s cognitive thinking abilities. The hope for this action research finding is that it will

benefit others and help educators to have a better understanding of the varying cognitive

development levels that are part of every classroom.

Cognitive Development Theory:

This theory was developed by Jean Piaget and it “described stages that children pass

through in the development of intelligence and formal thought processes” (Cherry, n.d.). Based

on Piaget’s theory we were able to find out that children do vary in cognitive thinking from

adults. We discovered that it wasn’t that children were less knowledgeable, rather just different

in their thinking ability (Eddy, 2010). In order to fully understand the theory, we thought it

would also be necessary to give a true definition of cognitive development, it is “the

development of intelligence, conscious thought, and problem-solving ability that begins in

infancy” (Medical Dictionary, 2012).

From further study of the cognitive theory, we discovered that there are factors that

influence thinking to change and go thought different stages. These factors include biological

maturation, activity, social experience, and equilibration (Woolfolk, 2010, p.32). Children must

be able to explore, interact with their environment, and make mistakes, in order to learn and


develop their thinking. From these experiences children will learn to organize information into

what Piaget calls schemes. Schemes are “a set of linked mental representations of the world,

which we use both to understand and to respond to situations” (McLeod, 2009). These schemes

become “mental maps” and are used to categorize experiences. The categorization goes like this,

if a child approaches an object or a situation that they are familiar with it will fit into their

already determined schema and assimilation occurs. If the child runs across something they are

unfamiliar with they have to accommodate the new experience and make new schemes or adjust

them, which will result in the child going back into equilibration (Funderstanding, n.d.).

Assimilation is defined as, “fitting new information into existing schemes” and accommodation

is defined as, “altering existing schemes or creating new ones in response to new information”

(Woolfolk, 2010, p. 33). Equilibration is extremely important to Piaget’s cognitive development

theory because it is through the desire for the mind to be at equilibrium, that the changes in

thought occur and therefore the advancement in thinking occurs and progresses.

According to Piaget’s Cognitive Theory, there are four stages of thinking. These stages

range from newborns to adults and go in sequential order. The first stage is Sensorimotor and

the age range is usually 0-2 years old. During this stage infants learn, “about themselves and

their world through their developing sensory and motor activity” (Papalia, 2009, p.146). This

stage is vital to understanding extremely low functioning thinkers, but mainly babies and

toddlers.

The next two stages are Preoperational, which usually ranges from ages 2-7 and

Concrete-Operational, which ranges from 7-11. These two stages of cognitive development are

going to vital for elementary teachers. The understanding of how differently these two stages of

thinkers are is what sets apart teaching styles for older and younger grade levels. The


Preoperational thinkers expand upon symbolic thought, one way logic, simple categorization,

and tend to be egocentric (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 34-35). Egocentric means, “Assuming that others

experience the world the same way they do” (Woolfolk, 2010, p.35). They also struggle with

conservation and decentering. Teacher’s for this level of thinkers will need to use visual aids,

make instruction time short, help students understand another’s perspective, understand that

students have varying meanings for the same word, and allow hands-on learning (Woolfolk,

2010, p.36-38). The Concrete-Operational thinker’s use reasoning to solve problems, think and

problem solve only here and now situations, master classification, grow in math, use inductive

reasoning and understand conservation (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 35-37). Teacher’s for this level of

thinkers will need to use visual aids, cut instruction time to medium to short lengths, explain

complex ideas, and give students logical problems to think about and solve (Woolfolk, 2010, p.

36-38).

The Preoperational and Concrete-Operational stages vary in skill level and ability. Two

ways that they vary is in the ability to understand conversation and the level at which they

classify. In the Concrete-Operational stage most children have the ability to conserve numbers,

length, and liquid volume. Conservation is the idea that a quantity remains the same though it

changes in appearance. “If you show a child four marbles in a row, then spread them out, the

preoperational child will focus on the spread, and tend to believe that there are now more

marbles than before” (Boeree, 2009). Piaget believed that children’s intellectual development is

based on physical development and is affected by their interactions with their environment

(Garhart 2000). He believed that everyone fits into one of his four stages of development. A key

concept of Piaget is classification. Classification refers to the ability to group objects together on

the basis of common features (Atherton, 2011).


The final stage is going to mostly concern middle school, high school, and college

teachers but there are times that upper elementary teachers may run across students thinking in

this range. The final stage is the formal stage of thinking, which is represented by those who use

abstract thinking and who are capable of both inductive and hypothetical-deductive reasoning

(Piaget, 1964, p. 4). Students at this age can make a hypothesis about something that is not right

in front of them and can do experiments to test the accuracy of it.

During our study we tested three children in four types of Piaget’s experiential tests.

They consisted of reading an Aesop Fable, a classification experiment, a combination logic and

conversation activity. Combination logic is the ability for a student to consider all possible

combinations of a set of elements (Cook & Cook, 2010). This type of behavior can develop in

the Concrete-Operational stage. For example, having a 3rd grader write all the possible numbers

out comes using their phone number. An Aesop Fable is a short fictitious story that is meant to

describe a moral lesson (Guralnik, 1968). Aesop’s famous book of fables is dated back to the 5th

century B. C. The stories are short to keep the attention of children and features animals as

characters that speak as people. The fable used in this research review was, The Lion and the

Mouse. This story is about a lion that caught a little mouse. The little mouse asked the lion to let

him go and states that he will help him in some way in the future. The lion agrees and later is

found captured. The mouse chews away the ropes, freeing the lion. The moral of the story

according to Aesops-fables.org.uk is “little friends may prove great friends” (2011).

Upon doing further research about Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, we discovered

some areas that have been questioned and challenged. The theorist Lev Vygotsky, challenged

Piaget’s theory and stressed that Piaget failed to include the effects of social setting on cognitive


development (McLeod, 2009). Others have challenged his methods of studies and claimed they

were biased because of the small amount of participants, the fact that he record data alone at

times, and that his test were at times confusing and difficult (McLeod, 2009). But even through

these challenges Piaget’s theory has been an inspiration to those who followed him and educators

of many generations.

Summary:

Jean Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory has had an impact on all areas of study that

involves children, ranging from education to doctors. Although there are disputes about whether

the stages are correct and if Piaget’s tests where unbiased, there is still a lot to be learned from

his findings. Educators gain the understanding that some of their children may be at varying

levels of thinking and that children in older grades can think in different ways than younger

children. Our evaluation of the three children proved that children at varying academic levels

and at varying ages do think differently which supports Piaget’s theory. As future educators, we

believe this study will benefit us in establishing a classroom that is appropriate for the level of

cognitive thinkers in our room. We hope that the knowledge we gained from this study will give

us a better understanding and help us improve our teaching styles, techniques, and expectations

of our students in our future classroom and benefit the student’s academic growth.


Procedure

Introduction:

This group decided to execute a series of tasks to determine the cognitive development

and language of three school age children. We worked collaboratively to find relevant research

on the four stages of Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development. Upon collecting

information for our research study we collect multiple sources that would be applicable to our

project. We tried to select unbiased participates to perform multiple assessment activities on that

would test their thinking. The group used a number of different instruments to observe stages of

Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development.

Instrumentation:

We used a number of different instruments to determine the developmental stage each

child was in. The first task was the interpretation of a story. We decided to use an Aesop fable,

The Lion and The Mouse. The story was read to each student and then they were asked what the

story meant. The group was then able to determine which stage of cognitive thinking each

student was in, by how they responded. For the second task, a classification activity was

performed by the three participates. Each student was given a number of items and then asked

them to group those items together. The items used consisted of a picture from a magazine,

pencil, magic marker, piece of chalk, notebook, paper, drawing paper, thumb tack, a pin, scotch

tape, and a paper sack.

The third task involved conservation of beads which would determine the cognitive level.

With a set of beads the test administer made two lines of beads side by side and asked the child if

both lines have the same amount. Next one of the sets of beads were spread and then the test

participates were asked which one had more. The finally part to this test involved returning the


spread out beads and bunching them together and again asking which one had more. The tests

administer also used two equal balls of clay, and asked if each ball had the same amount. Then

the balls of clay were flattened into a pancake and the test participates were asked which one had

more.

The final tasked used combination logic to determine each level. Each test participate

was given five different one-digit numbers on small pieces of paper. The test participates were

then asked to make as many different 3-digit numbers as they could. The test administer

recorded all the results as the test participates performed the activities.

Selection of Participants:

This action research group decided to use three school age children to see if age has a

direct effect on what stage of development a child is in. Two of the children were the same age

but functioning at different achievement levels. Student one was a five year old female in

Kindergarten, student two was an eight year old male in third grade and student three was an

eight year old in second grade. The test participates were chosen by one of the group members

because they fit the criteria the group had set prior and because they were easily accessible by

the group member who performed the testing procedures and activities.

Collection Procedures and Data Description:

In order to accumulate our data we gave each of the three students the same four tasks to

assess each students thinking. Based upon Jean Piaget’s, Theory of Cognitive Development we

were able to select how we would determine each students level based upon the response each

participate gave the test administer task.

Task one we asked the child what they thought The Lion and The Mouse fable meant. If

they responded emotionally, on a personal level, it was considered a pre-operational response. If


the student based his or her answer on the literal content of the story, we classified it as a

concreted operational response. If the student went beyond the literal content of the story and

showed an understanding to the moral side of the story they were considered part of the formal

operational response.

Task two was a classification exercise using different objects to be grouped together

based on their likeness. Early pre-operational was considered when the grouping consisted on

functional relationships. Such as, tape and paper sack because the tape can shut the sack, or

pencil and writing paper. The pencil is used to write on the paper. If the groupings were based

on perceptual features, such as, paper and picture because they are the same shape, pin and tack

because they have a sharp point. A concrete operational response was considered if the student

based the grouping on a common element, such as things that were made of paper and things you

can hang objects with.

For task three we decided to use a conservation task involving beads and clay. Pre-

operational responses were concluded when the student indicated that one group had more than

the other when changes were made. Concrete operational responses were concluded if the

students responded that they still had the same amount. Also, explaining his or her answer by

using identity, reversibility, or compensation as a justification to their response.

Task four was conducted using combination logic with a set of five numbers. Concrete

operational responses were concluded if the child went about the task in an arbitrary

unsystematic manner. A formal operational response was concluded if the student approached

the task in a methodical and systematic way.


Summary:

Four different kinds of tasks were given to three school age children. We were then

able to decide what stage of Jean Paget’s Theory of Cognitive Development each child was in.

This was concluded from our rubric we devised based on their answers. We viewed each of the

student’s responses and decided collectively which stage each was in.


Results

STUDENT 1

Student 1 responded to, “What do you think this story means?’

•About a mouse and lion (then a small pause). The lion woke up and the mouse was there. He

put his paw on the mouse. Hunters came and tied up the lion and the mouse came and untied the

ropes.

Student 1 grouped the items as follows:

•Pencil, marker, chalk

•Paper bag and drawing paper

•Magazine page, notebook paper and Scotch tape

•Straight pin and thumbtack

Student 1 responded to, “Do both have the same amount?’

•She counted both strands and said “yes.”

•When one set was spread out she responded with the pile spread out had more.

•When the spread out beads was gathered up and asked which one has more she responded with

“they have the same.”

Student 1 responded to, “Are these two balls of clay the same size?”

•Yes

After I smashed one; student 1 responded to, “Which one has the most now?”

•Pancake

Student 1 was asked to give 3 digit numbers out of 5.

•She didn’t know what I meant by digits.


STUDENT 2

Student 2 responded to “what do you think this story means?’

•The mouse can be helpful to a lion


•Paper bag, magazine page, notebook paper and drawing paper

•Pencil, chalk and marker

•Thumbtack and pin

•Scotch tape


•Yes

•When spread out he said the spread out ones had more.

•When one set was gathered up he said the gathered ones had more.

Student 2 responded to, “Are these two balls of clay the same size?

•Yes


•Still the same


•He understood and pulled 3 digits down randomly and put back and pulled down 3 more. He

did this repeatedly.

STUDENT 3

Student 3 responded to, “What do you think this story means?’

•Friendship



•Marker and pencil

•Magazine paper and brown paper bag

•Chalk and Scotch tape

•Tack and pin

•Notebook and drawing paper


•Yes

•When spread out he said the spread out ones had more.

•When one set was gathered up he said the gathered ones had more.

Student 3 responded to, “Are these two balls of clay the same size?

•Yes


•Pancake


•He pulled one set and said “I’m done.”


Age and Academic Comparison

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

Age 5 years old 8 years old 8 years old

Academic Ability Normal Above normal Normal

Grade Level Kindergarten Third Second

Results

Student 1 Student 2 Student 3

Aesop’s Fable Concrete operationalresponse

Pre-operationalresponse

Formal operationalresponse

Classification Concrete operationalresponse

Concrete operationalresponse


Conservation Pre-operationalresponse


Pre-operationalresponse

Combination Logic Not able to understand activity(most likely Pre-

operational response)


Formal operationalresponse


Discussion

Introduction:

Our group of college students worked to determine the cognitive level of three school-age

children; one at the age of five and two at the age of eight. We observed the students’ responses

after doing four different tasks with them. The first task was to gather their interpretations of a

story. The next task was on how they classified a group of objects. Following the second task,

the students were observed while participating in a conservation activity. Lastly, the students

were tested on combination logic. Our hypothesis was that children, at different ages and

different academic levels, will think differently. It was not a shocker to us that most of our

results confirmed that children, who are varied in age, clearly do think in differently. Our

evaluations supported the concept of Jean Peaget’s Cognitive Development Theory.

Discussion:

According to our hypothesis that children at different ages will think differently, the

results of our experiment confirmed our assumption in all, but one, task. The three students’

responses to the four tasks varied. Our results also showed that students at the same age may

think similar. Student #1 was five years old and students #2 and #3 were eight years old.

Student #1, in the first task, fell into the concrete operational response to the story; they were

focused on the literal content of the story. Student #2 replied with a formal operational response;

they went beyond the literal content of the story and indicated some understanding of the moral

of the story. Student #3 also fell into the formal operational response to the first task of their

interpretation of a story. After completing the second task dealing with the classification

experiment, it did reveal that in this category of tasks, students at different ages may think

similar when grouping objects together. Student #1, 2, and 3 all fell into the category of concrete


operational response; these student’s grouping were based on common elements so that each

object is an example of the basis of classification. For instance, they grouped the things made

out of paper and the things you can write with. Task three proves to us that even if children are

the same age, their academic ability may differ from one another. After the conservation

activity, student #1 and #3 answered with a pre-operational response; their responses indicated

that one person has more than the other when changes are made. Student #2’s answer fell into

the concrete operational response; their response explained that the amount was still the same,

but did not give an explanation. The last task of our experiment also confirmed our hypothesis;

this was the combination logic task. Student #1 responded with a concrete operational response;

they did not know what the word “digit” meant, therefore were confused. Student’s #2 and 3

both responded with a formal operational response. Although, student #2 approached the task in

an orderly and systematic way and student #3 completed the task once and said he was finished.

Conclusion:

Our results on this experiment with the three children gave us a great explanation that

those at different ages will think differently. It was our objective to figure out if age and

academic ability made a difference in the way students think. After completing each task with

each student and carefully observing and determining their operational responses, we have

confirmed our hypothesis. It is clear that students at all ages vary and think differently than

others.

Recommendations:

This experiment can be beneficial to all teachers working in the education system. It

reveals to them that students are not the same and they will think differently than their peers; not

all students think equally. When a teacher creates a lesson plan, they must take into


consideration the variations in students and try to come up with different teaching styles. This

may help with the diversity of student thinking. Knowing that students think differently will

most likely assist teachers in figuring out several ways to make their classroom a successful

learning experience for all of their students. For instance, because all students think differently,

teachers can set up, not only a PowerPoint presentation, but also give the students hands-on

experiments. This will give students, who may not have as great of thinking skills as others,

another chance to understand the concept of the lesson because the teacher is showing their

lesson with more than one teaching style. Also, our experiment with the three students will

prepare teachers of what to expect in their students; just because one student may understand

what is being taught, does not necessarily mean others will.

Summary:

Again, we hypothesized that children at different ages and at a different academic levels

think differently; our experiment validated that this is true. Giving the three students different

tasks and observing their responses show that older students are able think deeper about what is

put in front of them; whereas younger students look and grasp the simple and basic concepts of

what is given to them. Older students have the capability to look “outside of the box” when

given these tasks. Younger students seem to see things straightforward and are less likely to

think “outside of the box”.


References

Aesop Fables (2011). The Lion and the Mouse An Aesop’s Fable. Retrieved March 13, 2012,

from http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/

Atherton, J. S. (2011) Teaching and learning. Piaget’s Developmental Theory. Retrieved March

13, 2012, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm

Boeree, C. (2009). General psychology. Jean Piaget and Cognitive Development. Retrieved

March 13, 2012, from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html

Cherry, K. (n.d.). About.com: Psychology. Jean Piaget Biography. Retrieved March 14, 2012,

from http://psychology.about.com/od/profilesofmajorthinkers/p/piaget.htm

Cook, G. & Cook, J. (2010) World of Children. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from

http://instruct.tri-c.edu/dhaiduc /PSY%202010/Cook%20Chapter%2014.pdf

Eddy, S. (2010). Theories of cognitive development: Jean Piaget. Psychohawks. Retrieved

March 27, 2012, from http://psychohawks.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/theories-of

-cognitive-development-jean-piaget/

Funderstanding (n.d.). Piaget. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from http://www.funderstanding.

com/educators/piaget

Guralnik, D. (1968). Webster’s New World Dictionary. Cleveland: The World Publishing

Company.

McLeod, S. (2009). Jean Piaget. Simply Psychology. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from

http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

Medical Dictionary. (2012). Cognitive Development. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cognitive+development


Mooney, C. (2000). Theories of Childhood. An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori,

Erikson, Piaget, & Vygotsky. St. Paul: Redleaf Press.

Papalia, D.E., Olds, S.W., & Feldman, R.D. (2009). Human development (11th ed.) New York:

McGraw-Hill Companies.

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R.E. Ripple & V.N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget

Rediscovered, pp. 7-20 (reprint in 1972).

Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed.) New Jersey: Merrill, Pearson.

Documents

Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Processactresearch.wikispaces.com/.../Literature+Review+for+A… · Web viewCognitive Development and Children’s ... described