Enaction can favor children?s cognitive processes in Piagetian Conservation Tasks

LOZADA, MARIANA; CARRO, NATALIA

Congreso; Jean Piaget Society, 48th Annual Meeting; 2018

Increasing evidence demonstrates the significant roleof enaction in cognition (e.g., Di Paolo etal., 2010, Varela 2000; Witherington and Heying, 2013). The enactive theory highlights the importance of activemanipulation and agency, and proposes that perception and action areinseparable (e.g., Varela, 1999). Among Piaget?s invaluable contributions ishis discovery that quantity conservation tends to happen in children of 5-8years of age (Piaget, 1965, 1971). Piaget and his collaborators designed aseries of tasks in which children observed, then evaluated whether a certainquantity remained the same when nothing was added or removed, but changes in visualappearance were introduced. Thus, he analyzed children?s ability to understandconservation despite the apparent transformation of number, matter, or liquidquantity. According to Piaget (1965) and several other investigators (e.g.,Smedslund, 1968; Siegler, 1981), 5-7 year olds have difficulty understandingthe conservation concept, whereas 7-8 year olds usually become aware of theinvariance principle. Thus, three developmental stages were established:children who consistently identify the invariance principle (Total Conservers,TC), those who partially identify it (Partial Conservers, PC) and those who donot identify it in any task (Non-Conservers, NC). These tasks are ideal for evaluatingthe role of action in children?s understanding. In the present work we sought to analyze whetherenaction could favor cognitive understanding of the Piagetian conservationtasks in 6-7 year olds.  Quantityconservation conceptualization was evaluated by comparing two conditions:children who actively participated in the transformation process, and childrenwho observed an adult?s demonstration of the transformation process. Wehypothesized that hands-on experience would aid understanding of the invarianceprinciple beyond the chronological age differences of the children within thistransitional developmental stage. Thus, we expected to find that children whoenacted the transformation process would recognize the conservation principlein a higher proportion than those who only observed the demonstration.               MethodsParticipants      The study was conducted with105 children of first grade from public and private schools of Bariloche,Argentina (48.57% boys, 51.43% girls). The participants were all in goodhealth, and there were no significant differences in body mass index orsocioeconomic level. One child at a time carried out an experimental session of20-30 min. Two conditions were performed: an observation (N = 47), and an action condition (N = 58). Half the children were randomly assigned to eachcondition.  ProcedureEach child performed the tasks in a silent room in the school, sitting ata table (in front of the researcher) on which the task materials were set out.Each answer per task per child was evaluated.In the action condition the researcher asked eachchild to enact the seven Piagetian conservation tasks: two liquid quantitytasks, two mass quantity tasks, a number task and two length tasks. Each taskconsisted of three stages: Sameness condition, changing condition and judgmentstage. In the judgment stage the researcher asked the child two questions: ?Doboth containers have the same quantity?? and ?Can you tell me why?? ?Can youexplain why they are the same/different?? Answers to the first question wererecorded as the ?judgment response?, and to the second as the ?explanation?.In the observer condition the child observeddemonstrations of the seven tasks performed by a researcher, and the samestages were conducted.We analyzed children?s answers related to each task. Depending on eachchild?s conservation judgment, participants were classified as TC (conservationrecognition in all tasks), PC (conservation in some of the tasks), or NC (noconservation recognition in any task)Explanations were categorized as follows: (1)describing reversibility; (2) describing compensation (i.e. that the quantityis the same although one dimension of the object changed and was compensatedfor by another dimension; (3) describing that the relevant dimension remainedunaltered in spite of appearance being changed (i.e., identity); (4) statingthat the quantity was the same before and after the transformation; (5)explaining that the quantity was the same because the researcher neither addedto nor subtracted from the original quantity; and (6) explanations that includedsensory and physical perceptions (Table 1). Children who did not acknowledge conservationdescribed why they perceived a change in quantity, and this was considered aNon-equivalence explanation, categorized as: (1) explanations describingactions that had been performed without recognizing the possibility ofreversibility; (2) two dimensions were described without showing anunderstanding of the principle of compensation; and (3) explanations focusingon a single dimension without taking other dimensions into account. ResultsWhen comparing the action and observation groups, wefound that in all tasks the proportion of conservation answers wassignificantly higher in the action group than in the observation one.  We detected a higher proportion of TC in theaction group and a lower proportion of NC; no differences were detected betweenthe relative proportions of PC. Moreover, there were no differences in age between TC,PC and NC in the observation or action groups. When evaluating equivalence explanations in both groups, we found thatchildren used embodied ways of expressing their experience in the action group.They mentioned having ?felt?; they also mentioned their fingers, hands andsteps. There was more diversity of equivalence explanations in the action groupthan in the observation group. No differences between groups were observed inthe nonequivalence explanations. Discussion The present study shows how active participation inthe Piagetian conservation tasks, as opposed to mere observation of a demonstrationcarried out by the researcher, increased understanding of the conservationprinciple. The fact that conservation performance was higher in the actiongroup than in the observation one suggests that the experience of manipulatingobjects throughout the transformation processes facilitated conservationawareness. The fact that active experience during the transformation processwas effective in facilitating conservation performance highlights the crucialrole of agency. Our findings, which are in line with the enactivetheory (Di Paolo et al 2008; Varela, 2000), provide new evidence of howenaction and agency can favor conceptual processes in children.