INTRO- 150

The purpose of this report is to investigate the cognitive development of primary school
children. Data of two children, aged 5 and 7 years old, was collected and analysed using a
Piagetian lens in the results and analysis section of this report. The analysis describes the
cognitive processes the children used, and what Piagetian stage of cognitive development
they are in or transitioning to. The key terms used in this report to describe the cognitive
processes children used to undertake the Piagetian tasks are seriation, transitivity,
reversibility, centration, spatial reasoning, egocentric, symbolic and logic thought and
understanding of cause and effect. The discussion tells what the findings mean for the
classroom practitioner and the implications of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development in
learning, teaching, curriculum and schooling. It investigates the importance of
developmentally appropriate practice and connects Piaget’s theory to classroom practices
that best cater for concrete operational learners.

METHOD- 250
In terms of the ethical procedures, the project had to follow the Charles Sturt University
Ethics guide. This meant consent from both parents and the children had to be given,
confidentiality and privacy of data and the children’s identity had to be ensured and the
children were to be treated with respect and dignity throughout the whole project. The
university took videos of two participants completing the Piagetian tasks and uploaded
them to Interact2. I watched the videos, observed (see Appendix 1), and analysed the data
with a Piagetian theoretical framework to determine the cognitive processes the
participants used. I maintained the confidentiality of the participants by using pseudonyms.
Both participants were boys. One was 5 years old when the data was collected and the
other was 7 years old. I will refer to the 5-year-old as ChA and the 7-year-old as ChB. The
findings are going to be used to transfer Piaget’s theoretical knowledge into practice in the
classroom.

RESULTS & ANALYSIS- 900

Task 1 asked the child to draw a tree on either side of a steep mountain. A correct answer
required children to use spatial reasoning, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage.
ChA and ChB used egocentric thought, in interpreting the question and drew two trees, one
on each side of the mountain. Both their drawings demonstrated the use of “lines to
represent the boundaries” (Berk, 2013, p. 242) of the trees, placing them both in the
Concrete Operational Stage.

Task 2 asked the child to differentiate between the left and right hand. A correct answer
required children to use spatial reasoning, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage.
ChA identified his mother’s right hand correctly using special reasoning, but when asked
what was in his right hand, answered incorrectly, indicating he is transitioning to the
Concrete Operational Stage. ChB was asked to identify the instructor’s left hand and his own
and using spatial reasoning, correctly did this, placing him in the Concrete Operational
Stage.

Task 3 asked the child to organise eight sticks in height order. A correct answer required
children to demonstrate transitivity and seriation, placing them in the Concrete Operational
Stage. ChA and ChB correctly used seriation and transitivity to place the sticks in order,
placing them both in the Concrete Operational Stage.

Task 4 asked the child to identify who was tallest of three boys. A correct answer required
children to use seriation and transitivity, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage.
ChA used transitivity to correctly answer the question, however, his justification showed
little logical thought, indicating he is transitioning to the Concrete Operational Stage. ChB,
seriated mentally, but was unable to provide a logical explanation of his answer, indicating
he is transitioning to the Concrete Operational Stage.

Task 5a asked the child to determine if two sticks where equal length when lined up
together and when slightly offset. A correct answer required the child to use conservation of
length and reversibility, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage. ChA uses
reversibility saying “you just moved them”, placing him in the Concrete Operational Stage.
ChB was unsure to begin with, however, after being asked some questions and then the
question being repeated, ChB correctly used conservation of length to answer the question,
implying he is transitioning to the Concrete Operational Stage.

Task 5b asked the child if the volume of two equal balls of Playdoh changed when one ball
was flattened. A correct answer required the child to understand reversibility and
conservation of mass, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage. ChA and ChA used
conservation of mass and reversibility to correctly explain their response, placing them in
the Concrete Operational Stage.

Task 5c asked the child to determine if two equal rows of M&Ms when lined up and were
still equal when one row was spread out. A correct answer required the child to use
reversibility and conservation of number, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage.
ChA used reversibility to answer correctly, however was unable to provide logical
justification for his response, implying he is transitioning to the Concrete Operational Stage.
ChB uses conservation of number and logical thought, correctly explaining “they’re just
spread out”, placing him in the Concrete Operational Stage.

Task 5d asked the child to determine if the water will rise the same when 2 equal balls of
playdoh are placed into two glasses containing equal volumes of water. Then, the child is
asked to determine if the water will rise equally when one ball is made into a semi-circular
sausage and placed in the glass. A correct answer required the child to use conservation of
liquid and an understanding of cause and effect, placing them in the Concrete Operational
Stage. ChB struggled initially to correctly answer the questions but after some pointed
questions and the experiment being completed was able to use logical thought to explain
correctly what, how and why the water would and did rise, suggesting he is transitioning to
the Concrete Operational Stage. ChA’s task asked him to identify if two tall glasses with
equal volumes of water were equal to one tall glass and one shorter but wide glass with
equal volumes of water. A correct answer required ChA to use conservation of liquid and
reversibility, placing him in the Concrete Operational Stage. He used conservation of liquid
and reversibility to correctly identify the volumes as equal and was able to justify his
response using logical thought, placing him in the Concrete Operational Stage.
Task 6 asked the child why leaves go red and yellow in autumn. A correct answer required
the child to use logical thought, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage. ChA
demonstrated logical thought when explaining the reason to be “because it’s autumn time”,
thus, indicating he understands cause and effect, placing him in the Concrete Operational
stage. ChB shows some logical thought in his explanation, indicating he is transitioning to
the Concrete Operational Stage.

Task 7 required the child to explain what a story meant after it was read to them. A correct
answer required logical reasoning, placing them in the Concrete Operational Stage. With the
Instructor, ChA is unable to tell what happened without prompts, however, with prompts he
is able to demonstrate some logical thought and understanding of cause and effect, thus
indicating he is transitioning to the Concrete Operational Stage. ChB uses centration to
focus on the farmer being poor and when asked specific questions he was able to answer
correctly, demonstrating symbolic thought, placing him in the Concrete Operational Stage.

SUMMARY OF OVERALL RESULTS OF EACH CHILD- 300

ChA demonstrates processes relevant to both the Pre-Operational and Concrete Operational
stages of cognitive development. He is able to conserve length, mass, liquid and number and
does this through the correct use of the cognitive process reversibility. He also shows
understanding of seriation and transitivity in ordering the eight sticks from shortest to
tallest. He uses egocentric thought to draw two trees, one on each side of the mountain,
thus taking the task from his perspective, however, the question lent itself to that process
anyway. In a different situation, he is able to identify his mother’s right hand, indicating he
does not solely use egocentric thought, but is also able to think from the perspective of
others too using spatial reasoning as well. ChA’s understanding of cause and effect is
evident in his explanation of why the leaves change colour in autumn, thus demonstrating
logical thought. His ability to think logically is also shown in his justification of the why the
amount of water in two tall glasses is the same as the amount of water in one tall and one
short glass. However, he struggles to justify his response for who is tallest and why there are
the same amount of M&Ms in the spread-out line and the compact line. Therefore, it can be
concluded, that while ChA has mastered many of the processes required to be at the
Concrete Operational Stage, he is still transitioning to that stage as his ability to think
logically is not consistent throughout all the tasks.

ChB demonstrates processes relevant to both the Pre-Operational and Concrete Operational
stages of cognitive development. He is able to conserve mass and number by correctly using
the cognitive process of reversibility, however, he struggled, to begin with, to conserve
length and liquid until prompted with questions to guide his thinking. He also shows
understanding of seriation and transitivity in ordering the eight sticks from shortest to
tallest. He uses egocentric thought to draw two trees, one on each side of the mountain,
thus taking the task from his perspective, however, the question lent itself to that process
anyway. In a different situation, he is able to identify what is in both his, and the instructor’s
left and right hands, indicating he does not solely use egocentric thought, but is also able to
think from the perspective of others too using spatial reasoning as well. He has some ability
to think logically as shown in the conservation of number task, however he struggles to
logically justify the reason the leaves change colour in autumn. Furthermore, until prompted
ChB struggles to logically identify what the water will do after the playdoh is places in the
water. Therefore, it can be concluded, that while ChB has mastered many of the processes
required to be at the Concrete Operational Stage, he is still transitioning to that stage as his
ability to think logically is not consistent throughout all the tasks.

DISCUSSION- 900
From a broad perspective, my findings, as indicated in the result and analysis section will
guide this discussion as to what I would do in my classroom to best cater for the needs of all
my students. This will encompass the importance of developmentally appropriate practice
and the broader implications of Piaget’s theory on learning, teaching, curriculum and
schooling.

Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is an approach to teaching that is grounded in

research about understanding “how young children develop and learn” (National
Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d., p. 1) and the knowledge about
“effective early education” (NAEYC, n.d., p. 1). The framework of DAP is arranged in order to
encourage the best learning and development for young children (NAEYC, n.d., p. 1). DAP is
about teachers understanding what stage of development children are at and helping each
child “meet challenging and achievable goals” (NAEYC, n.d., p. 1) when working individually
or with others (NAEYC, n.d., p. 1) This correlates with what Piaget says about how children
can “accommodate new objects and events only when they can…assimilate the objects and
events into existing schemes” (McDevitt, Ormrod, Cupit, Chandler, & Aloa, 2013, p. 233). Or
in other words, when they build on already learned knowledge. Therefore, the importance
of DAP from a Piagetian perspective is that the teacher understands where children are in
their cognitive development to most appropriately cater for them.

Implications of Piaget’s theories can be seen all throughout today’s education system. Its
implications on learning and teaching are that teachers now understand that “all children go
through the same sequences of development, but at different rates” (Berk, 2013, p. 259)
and that they “think in qualitatively different ways at different age levels” (McDevitt et al.,
2013, p. 207). Therefore, teachers need to understand that they must “plan activities for
individual children and small groups” (Berk, 2013, p. 259) and not just give every child the
same work regardless of their stage of development and level of competence in
understanding the content and completing the task (Berk, 2013, p. 259). In addition,
another implication of Piaget’s theory to learning and teaching is from Piaget says about
how “children learn best through “interaction with the physical environment” (McDevitt et
al., 2013, p. 206) and by “interaction with other people” (McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 207)
Therefore, in the teaching and learning environment of the classroom, teachers would make
discovery learning the way to teach children, which includes the children being involved
with and encouraged to do puzzles, play games, dress up, build, read and complete hands
on activities (Berk, 2013, p. 259), as this is the way they best learn (McDevitt et al., 2013, p.
207). From a Piagetian perspective, the games would be more beneficial if done individually
(McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 207). By integrating these theories into the classroom, the
students will learn more and lean more effectively. In relation to the curriculum, the
implications of Piaget’s theory are seen in the sequence of tasks that students are required
to understand as they are taught the next step only after they have successfully understood
the previous one. Similarly, the implications of Piaget’s theory in schooling can be seen in
two distinct ways. The first one is the separation of year levels. Before a student is allowed
to progress to the next year level, they have to show they are competent in the knowledge
and demonstration of knowledge they have been taught in their current year level. The
second one is separation into ability groups. Literacy and numeracy groups are “streamed”
according to ability levels rather than age groups and the students transition up a level only
once they show mastery of the content in their current stage.

If I was ChA and ChB’s teacher, I would have concrete objects and have many opportunities
for them to experiment with the physical environment, since I know, from what Piaget says,
that concrete operational learner learn best through interacting with the physical
environment around then (McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 206). This would be in the form of
discovery learning. Games would be a key resource for ChA and ChB since games are a good
way to acquire understanding of mathematical principles (Kamii, 1982) and since, learning
“should be meaningful to [children]” (Ojose, 2008, p. 29) and children find games engaging,
this activity would cater best for both children’ needs. Since ChA had difficulty justifying his
responses for the conservation of number task, I would have hands on activities in the
classroom that focus on conservation of number. This could be by giving ChA six counters,
for example, and encourage him to arrange them in as many different ways and positions as
possible, draw them and ensure that there are never more or less counters than he started
with. This would provide ChA with the understanding required for him to be able to logically
justify that there are many ways to represent the same number of counters since. Similarly,
since ChB struggled with conservation of length until prompted with questions to guide his
thinking, I would have activities which involved giving ChB two equal pieces of string and he
would have to make as many different shapes each piece of string as possible, draw them
and ensure the pieces of string stay the same length. This would provide ChB with the
understanding required for him to be able to logically justify that there are many ways to
represent two equal lengths of string. ChB also struggled with conservation of liquid until
prompted with questions to guide his thinking. Therefore, I would have lots of hands on
opportunities for him to repeatedly interact with and be immersed in activities involving
pouring the same amount of water into different size containers, which would help him
understand that the same amount of water can be represented differently depending on
the container it is put in. Therefore, through continual immersion and rehearsal in and of
the activities, which helps people retain information (McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 262), ChA and
ChB will be able to conserve mass, liquid, length and number and be able to logically justify
their responses.

In my analysis, I have used a Piagetian lends, however, there is criticism against some of
Piaget’s theories that needs to be addressed in order to have a classroom that is best for
students in every aspect. Some criticism is that Piaget believed “children construct
knowledge on their own” (McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 232). Another criticism of Piaget’s theory
is that the stages are not as ridged Piaget suggested (McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 216). One
major criticism of Piaget’s theory is that he “underestimated the importance of language”
(McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 235). It is with these criticisms that Vygotsky also becomes
important in catering for all children. This is where the theories of Vygotsky are important.
His idea of the zone of proximal development deepened theorist understanding of the way
children best learn from thinking they learn best individually to understanding that they
learn best when they perform tasks, with a more knowledgeable person, that they could not
do on their own (McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 223) In addition, Vygotsky also stated the
importance of language in cognitive development through “two language-based
phenomena-self-talk and inner speech” (McDevitt et al., 2013, p. 235) The importance of
this focuses on the child’s ability to increasingly control their own behaviours and to be able
to communicate with adults to further their learning in their zone of proximal development
(McDevitt, p. 235). If I used my knowledge of what Vygotsky says about cognitive
development too, then in my classroom with ChA and ChB, I would have them work
together so that they can learn with and from each other. Furthermore, I would ensure the
goals for each child were challenging but in their zone of proximal development and that
there would be plenty of time to explore and gain depth of knowledge in their areas that
need improvement through lots of individual and group discussions. Using my knowledge of
what both Piaget and Vygotsky say about the cognitive development of children, the
students in my classroom would be catered for well.

CONCLUSION- 250
This research report has shown that children around the age of 5-7 years old are
transitioning to the Concrete Operational Stage. While this research only examines and
analyses two children, we can still see, from the results, that each child goes through
Piaget’s stages of cognitive development at different rates (Berk, 2013, p. 259). Moreover,
the results of ChA and ChB indicate that children can understand certain concepts required
to be a Concrete Operational learner, but have trouble understanding others that Concrete
Operational learners can understand. Thus, as critics, in the McDevitt text explain, Piaget’s
stages are more intertwined and interwoven than Piaget suggested (McDevitt et al., 2013, p.
216). Children do not necessarily master every concept/element of a previous stage before
being able to master concepts/elements within the next stage. It is this understanding that
makes developmentally appropriate practice so crucial as it encourage the best learning and
development for young children (NAEYC, n.d., p. 1). Furthermore, the findings deepen
researcher’s knowledge of what cognitive processes children around 5-7 years old use and
at what stage children in that age group fall. These results facilitate educators to understand
the broader implications of Piaget’s theory in learning, teaching, curriculum and schooling.
Simultaneously, the criticism against some aspects of Piaget’s theory indicate there is more
that teachers can do to cater for their students in the best way possible, than to solely rely
on the theories and research of Piaget. Instead, with the understanding of these results and
the combination of what theorist, such as Piaget and Vygotsky say about cognitive
development, teachers will be able to cater most effectively for the concrete operational
learners in their classroom. Since not all the students in my classroom will be in the concrete
operational stage or perhaps even transitioning to it, I would complete further research on
how to ensure all learners in my class were catered for, not just the concrete operational
learners.
REFERENCE LIST
Berk, L. E. (2013). Cognitive development : Piagetian, core knowledge, and Vygotskian
perspectives. In Child development (9th ed.) (pp. 224-275). Boston Mass. : Pearson.)

Kamii, C. (1982). Number in preschool and kindergarten Educational implications of Piaget’s

theory. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

McDevitt, T. M., Ormrod, J. E., Cupit, G., Chandler, M., & Aloa, V. (2013). Child Development
and Education ( 1st ed.). Melbourne : Pearson.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (n,d). Developmentally
Appropriate Practice (DAP). Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/DAP

Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget’s theory of cognitive development to the mathematics

instruction. The Mathematics Educator, 18, 26-30. Retrieved from
https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-1659300-dt-content-rid-
3309004_1/courses/S-EPT125_201760_B_I/Piaget%20and%20Maths.pdf

APPENDIX 1