There is a marked distinction in the cognitive skills and the reasoning ability of the children interviewed. The younger child which was 6 years old could not understand that the whole pizza whether cut in four or eight pieces was the same whole. He believed that the more pieces you have the bigger the pizza. He does not have the ability to think logically and perception is priority in preference to logic. Egged and Kauchak (2016) states, “perception dominates children;s thinking in this stage” (p. 50). In the second demonstration with that the bottle of clays, the child was instructed to lay one clay flat like a pancake, altering it 's shape. The young boy did not understand that no matter what shape or form the clay was placed in, it was
…show more content…
Though, the first boy responded relatively well to the challenge, his language and thought was sometimes not very precise. he was willing to express his thoughts, doubts and admits that she did not know some of the answers, while making a good attempt to answer the question. Here the lines are blurred because she seemed to be somewhere between the pre-operational stage where there is an overgeneralization in language where “many cognitive changes occur” and there is an “enormous progress in language development” (Eggen and Kauchak, 2016, p.50) and concrete operational stage which he was able to think logical thoughts, explanation. and “overcome some of the egocentrism of pre operational thinkers” (Eggen and Kauchak, 2016, p. 52). It is important to note that Piaget posits a system of language development that moves from one stage to another, however, one could reasonably make the claim that it is possible for these stages to overlap. As with the case of the second boy, he wasn 't able to perform the operations as he had “the inability to see objects and events from others’ perspective” (Eggen and Kauchak, 2016, p. 52). The older girl was fluent and accurate in her responds. She was able to express her thoughts while answer the question. She seemed to be in the formal operational stage. She is able to think about the hypothetical and make connections, she used a systematic and theoretical method in carrying out the operation. Egged and Kauchak (2016) declared as fact that formal thinkers “can think abstractly, systematically and hypothetically” (p.
Though, the first boy responded relatively well to the challenge, his language and thought was sometimes not very precise. he was willing to express his thoughts, doubts and admits that she did not know some of the answers, while making a good attempt to answer the question. Here the lines are blurred because she seemed to be somewhere between the pre-operational stage where there is an overgeneralization in language where “many cognitive changes occur” and there is an “enormous progress in language development” (Eggen and Kauchak, 2016, p.50) and concrete operational stage which he was able to think logical thoughts, explanation. and “overcome some of the egocentrism of pre operational thinkers” (Eggen and Kauchak, 2016, p. 52). It is important to note that Piaget posits a system of language development that moves from one stage to another, however, one could reasonably make the claim that it is possible for these stages to overlap. As with the case of the second boy, he wasn 't able to perform the operations as he had “the inability to see objects and events from others’ perspective” (Eggen and Kauchak, 2016, p. 52). The older girl was fluent and accurate in her responds. She was able to express her thoughts while answer the question. She seemed to be in the formal operational stage. She is able to think about the hypothetical and make connections, she used a systematic and theoretical method in carrying out the operation. Egged and Kauchak (2016) declared as fact that formal thinkers “can think abstractly, systematically and hypothetically” (p.