M&Ms - Aidan believes that the more spaced out heart candies are a larger amount than his own tightly spaced row of heart candies. However, both rows each had seven hearts, meaning that they were equal even though one row was spread out more. When asked to fix the row so it is “equal”, the child proceeded to put the hearts back into how they initially were and thought that they were equal again since they were spaced the exact same, when they were actually equal the whole time. The child showed that he cannot conserve number. Piaget proposed that children under seven years old cannot conserve number and Aidan proved he could not conserve number. This experiment showed that Aidan was in the pre-operational stage of Piaget’s stages of development.
…show more content…
Piaget proposed that children do not have an understanding or develop meaning for counting and numbers until after age six. Aidan showed he understood counting and understood the increase in size of the paper strips. He put the paper strip that was missing in the correct spot, even though he “didn’t know why” it was correct. He said “small, medium, large” and that the paper strip that was missing was “medium” implying that he understood the increase in the height of the strips. Piaget’s proposed theory that children under six do not have an understanding of number was not challenged in our experiment since Aidan was not under the age of …show more content…
The child’s Piaget level corresponded with their Kohlberg level. The child was six years old and showed traits in the preoperational stage such as symbolic thinking and proper syntax. He understand that the kid who broke more of his mother’s dishes did the worst thing. This shows that his intuition is strong since he instantly answered that the kid who broke more dishes did the worst thing. The other story, where the child had to pick to either miss ice cream and cake or help the child who had fallen showed inconsistency. Instead of helping the child who fell, Aidan said he would choose to get cake and ice cream over helping the child. This shows he was in stage 2 of preconventional morality. In stage 2 children understand that there isn’t just “one right view that is handed down by authorities” and that “different individuals have different viewpoints.” Aidan showed a more selfish way in picking to get cake and ice cream over helping a
Piaget proposed that children do not have an understanding or develop meaning for counting and numbers until after age six. Aidan showed he understood counting and understood the increase in size of the paper strips. He put the paper strip that was missing in the correct spot, even though he “didn’t know why” it was correct. He said “small, medium, large” and that the paper strip that was missing was “medium” implying that he understood the increase in the height of the strips. Piaget’s proposed theory that children under six do not have an understanding of number was not challenged in our experiment since Aidan was not under the age of …show more content…
The child’s Piaget level corresponded with their Kohlberg level. The child was six years old and showed traits in the preoperational stage such as symbolic thinking and proper syntax. He understand that the kid who broke more of his mother’s dishes did the worst thing. This shows that his intuition is strong since he instantly answered that the kid who broke more dishes did the worst thing. The other story, where the child had to pick to either miss ice cream and cake or help the child who had fallen showed inconsistency. Instead of helping the child who fell, Aidan said he would choose to get cake and ice cream over helping the child. This shows he was in stage 2 of preconventional morality. In stage 2 children understand that there isn’t just “one right view that is handed down by authorities” and that “different individuals have different viewpoints.” Aidan showed a more selfish way in picking to get cake and ice cream over helping a