PIAGETIAN ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE STAGES OF
DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR- THROUGH SEVEN-YEAR-OLDS
by
BETTY LAND GAINES, B.F.A., M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved
May, 1985
PIAGETIAN ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE STAGES OF
DEVELOPMENT, OF FOUR- THROUGH SEVEN-YEAR-OLDS
by
BETTY LAND GAINES, B.F.A., M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
EDUCATION
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved
Co-chairperson of the Committee
Co-Chairperson of the Committee
Oj^^r^.r.^ (^L<.
/:
VI-
Accepted
//^^''-'^'U^^^
Dean of t<ne Graduate School
May, 1985
7;
C->/,
1^^' ' ^
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank my committee for their insightful comments and
advice and special thanks to my co-chairpersons. Dr. Bill Askins and
Dr. Connie Steele, for their patience and expertise.
The completion
of this study would not have been possible without the guidance of
Dr. Charles A. Reavis, Dr. Mary Tom Riley, Dr. Welborn Willingham,
Dr. Alice M. Denham, and Dr. Anita M. Pankake.
A special thanks to the children who dressed up and gave up play
time to participate in this study.
Further thanks is extended to my colleagues at Midland College
for their support and encouragement.
I wish to share the attainment of this goal with my family whose
unwavering faith sustained me through the course of this study.
To
Rob, Richard, and Gayanne and to my husband, Bob, I lovingly dedicate
this work.
ii
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ii
LIST OF TABLES
VI
LISTS OF FIGURES
vii
CHAPTER
I.
II.
III.
INTRODUCTION
1
Statement of the Problem
6
Purpose of the Study
6
Definition of Terms
6
Limitations
7
Basic Assumptions
8
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
9
REVIEW OF PIAGETIAN LITERATURE
10
Introduction to Piaget and His Works
11
Piagetian Impact on Educational Administration
14
Review of Four Piagetian Tasks
19
Task 1
Ordering
19
Task 2
Linear Perspective
21
Task 3
Class Inclusion
23
Task 4:
Classification
25
Availability of Assessment Tools
27
Summary
27
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
28
Rationale for the Study
28
iii
IV.
Source of Data
29
Selection of Children
30
Procedure for Videotaping
32
Procedure for Viewing the Videotape
38
Summary
41
ANALYSIS OF DATA
42
Procedures
42
Statistical Tool
43
Frequency Distribution
43
Review and Analysis of the Twenty Segments
44
Segment 1 on Linear Perspective by Russell
....
Segment 2 on Class Inclusion by Drew
Segment 3 on Logical Classification by Susie
44
45
...
46
Segment 4 on Class Inclusion by Lee Ann
47
Segment 5 on Ordering by Suzanne
48
Segment 8 on Linear Perspective by Amy
49
Segment 10 on Logical Classification by Shantell
. 48
Segment 11 on Logical Classification by Brian . . .
49
Segment 12 on Linear Perspective by Leah
50
Segment 13 on Logical Classification by Jennifer
. 51
Segment 14 on Ordering by Candi
52
Segment 15 on Ordering by Maya
52
Segment 16 on Ordering by Tonya
53
Segment 17 on Ordering by Todd
54
Segment 18 on Class Inclusion by Bill
54
1v
Segment 19 on Class Inclusion by Michael
55
Segment 20 on Class Inclusion by Jamie
56
Analysis of Segments 6, 7, and 9
V.
57
Segment 6 on Linear Perspective by Greg
57
Segment 7 on Linear Perspective by Malita
59
Segment 9 on Logical Classification by Chris . . . .
61
Frequency Distribution of Modes by Tasks
63
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
69
Summary
69
Conclusions
70
Implications for Further Research
Recommendations
. .
72
73
NOTES
75
REFERENCES
76
APPENDICES
78
LIST OF TABLES
Table
M 1,1
Frequency Distribution of Assessment Levels By
Texas Tech Team
95
4.1
Greg
58
4.2
Malita
60
4.3
Chris
62
4.4
Ordering
65
4.5
Linear Perspective
66
4.6
Class Inclusion
68
4.7
Logical Classification
68
Frequency Distribution of Assessment Levels
Group I
96
Frequency Distribution of Assessment Levels
Group 2
97
Frequency Distribution of Assessment Levels
Group 3
98
Frequency Distribution of Assessment Levels
Group 4
99
M 1.2
M 1.3
M 1.4
M 1.5
M 2.1
Frequency Distribution of Modes
All Groups
vi
100
LIST OF FIGURES
4
1 Greg
58
4
2 Malita
4
3 Chris
N
1
Segment
1
102
N
2
Segment
2
103
N
3
Segment
3
104
N
4
Segment
4
105
N
5
Segment
5
106
N
6
Segment
6
107
N
7
Segment
7
108
N
8
Segment
8
109
N
9
Segment
9
110
N 10
Segment 10
Til
N 11
Segment 11
112
N 12
Segment 12
113
N 13
Segment 13
114
N 14
Segment 14
115
N 15
Segment 15
116
N 16
Segment 16
117
N 17
Segment 17
118
N 18
Segment 18
119
N 19
Segment 19
120
N 20
Segment 20
121
1
60
62
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In
1920,
Jean
Piaget,
a
Swiss
psychologist,
constructed
intelligence tests for children at the Binet laboratory in Paris.
found
little
answers.
than
differently.
tests
scoring
that
Piaget
the
children's
became
(1969)
older
So
forced
concluded
children
that
or
Piaget
abandoned
right
or wrong
younger
adults
right
interested
seemed to fit a pattern of mental
Piaget
"dumber"
in
On the contrary,
answers that
1978).
interest
but
children
process
of
in favor
wrong
in the wrong
structure
the development
answers
or
He
(Cowan,
are
not
information
standardized
of
activities
geared to open-ended questions, and the focus of his research shifted
to studies of a child's understanding of mathematical and scientific
concepts.
By his clinical method, Piaget changed or reworded the questions
as he thought
this would
thought processes.
help him better
understand
the child's
He ignored sample sizes and statistical summaries
as he regarded such matters of less importance than detailed examples
of children's thinking (Crain, 1980; Flavell, 1963; Ginsburg & Opper,
1969).
Between 1929 and 1939, Piaget and his most famous student, Barbel
Inhelder, investigated
a child's
concepts.
proof that children's thought processes are
They
qualitatively
found
different
from
logical, numerical, and geometric
those
of
adults.
This
discrepancy
between
child
cognitive
and
adult
development
reasoning
could
caused
be
Piaget to conclude that
characterized
succession of qualitatively distinct stages.
the
most
basic
and
controversial
by
an
invariant
This notion is one of
features
of
his
cognitive
developmental theory (Brainerd, 1978).
Piaget (1969) believed that it is possible to detect broad stages
in the development of a child with distinct characteristics that can
be applied in a general manner to all events of the period.
Piaget
concluded that four major periods or stages could be described in
terms of general, overall mental structures, which are sequentially
integrated by the child.
Each level of structures becomes integrated
into a more advanced level.
The order of the stages is invariant and
sequential, and the completion of each stage is necessary for the
advancement
to the
next
stage.
The movement
from
one
stage
to
another is dependent on the maturation of the nervous system and on
interaction
with
the
environment
order, however, remains constant.
by
Piaget
in order
and
experience
in general.
The
The four global stages developed
of appearance are:
sensorimotor
(birth
to 2
years), preoperational (2 to 7 years), concrete operations (7 to 11
years),
and
formal
operations
(11
years
on).
Piaget
observed
children carrying out responses to environmental tasks that could be
used
to determine
the
child's
level
of
cognitive development
to
determine their level of cognitive development.
When Piaget began his study of children, the research received
different responses by psychologists all over the world.
The initial
interest and enthusiasm soon declined in the United States (Crain,
1980)
until
1960's.
a
revival
of
interest
in
his work
occurred
in
the
Overall, Piaget's stage sequence theory of development has
been well received, particularly as it relates to mathematical and
scientific reasoning (Crain, 1980).
There is rarely a study of how children think that does not refer
to
Piaget
and
his
cognitive
developmental
theory
(Crain,
1980).
Therefore, one of the objectives of child development courses is the
understanding
of
stage
development
in
children
with
particular
of a child
development
emphasis on the theories of Jean Piaget.
Methods were
course
at
sequential
sought
Midland
College
development
development
course
development
in
by the instructor
(Gaines,
read
their
whereby
the
textbook
Note
students
1).
general
could
Students
information
(Ambron,
1984)
observe
this
in the
child
about
stage
and
administered
Piagetian tasks to ten children and assessed each child's level of
stage development.
Gaines found that as the students presented each
child's results in class, the students expressed lack of confidence
in their ability correctly to assess each child's stage development.
Concern
for
the
problem
reassessment of the project.
each
student
development?
observe
ten
presented
by
the
students
caused
a
Was there a better method than having
different
children
and
assess
stage
If all the students had observed the same child engaged
in the same task, would the assessment have been the same?
Would the
student gain confidence if his or her stage assessment for a child
was the same as that of others in the class?
A
review
of
the
literature
How could one be sure?
indicated
that
a vast
amount
of
videotaped material had been prepared for television or educational
presentations depicting various aspects of Piagetian theories.
audio-visual
materials
mentioned
below
are
These
explications
and
demonstrations of Piaget's theoretical framework.
1.
The Yale University Media Design Studio produced a film that
depicts
Piaget's child development theories and
experiments
which involved Swiss children.
2.
Davidson
Films produced
Developmental Theory.
three-
to
a series of films titled
This series includes:
six-year-old
illustrate
children
developmental
one that shows
performing
changes
and
Piaget's
tasks
clarify
that
certain
Piagetian terms; one that relates to memory and intelligence;
one that illustrates children in various developmental stages
responding
class
to
tasks
inclusion,
that depicts
and
children
relating
to
multiple
hierarchical
classification,
classification;
between the ages of five and
another
twelve
engaged in tasks of conservation of quantity, length, area,
and volume.
3.
Vassar College in New York produced two films; one a study of
spatial
relationships
and
another
a
study
of
object
permanence.
4.
New York University produced a film on causality.
5.
University of California at Los Angeles produced a film on
sensorimotor development.
6.
Harper and Row were the producers of a film on changes in
perception
and
memory,
and
the
conservation
of mass
and
number.
7.
The
British
Broadcasting
demonstrating
some
of
the
Company
produced
limitations
of
a
film
children's
conceptual thinking.
None of the above mentioned audiovisual materials was designed in
such as way as to enable the audience to observe the subjects perform
the specific tasks and to make a judgment as to the correct level of
stage development for the child.
If an assessment were made by the
viewer, there was no way to know if the assessment was correct.
Therefore, the present
would
demonstrate
children—whether
ability
to
reliably.
assess
to
they
study was to design an instrument that
students
as
well
as
to
be parents, teachers, or
stage
development
of
children
supervisors
of
caregivers--their
accurately
and
Additionally this study sought to provide data for school
administrators that could be used for staff development for teachers
and various instructional leaders and for the improvement of student
achievement.
Videotape
engaged
was
selected
as
the vehicle for observing
children
in a group of Piagetian tasks permitting comparison of an
individual's ability to assess cognitive development from observing a
videotape.
statement of the Problem
The problem of this study was the lack of confidence of students,
parents,
teachers,
and
caregivers
in
assessing
cognitive stage development of children.
increase
their
specifically
skill
was
appropriate
apparent
the
The need for materials to
because
for building
correctly
no
awareness
materials
and
were
perception
of
children's developmental skills.
Purpose of the Study
The
purpose
of
the
study
was
to
determine
whether
parents/teachers/ caregivers could reliably assess stage development
of
the
four- through
Piagetian tasks:
(1)
inclusion, and (4)
seven-year-old's
ordering, (2)
abilities
in the
following
linear perspective, (3)
class
logical classification.
Definition of Terms
Since
meaning,
most
terms
only
those
used
by
terms
child
unique
psychologists
to
the
have
universal
administration
understanding of the Piagetian tasks were included.
and
Therefore, for
the purpose of this study, the following definitions were formulated:
Class Inclusion.
A Piagetian task to determine the understanding
of the relationship between categories when members of subclasses are
also members of the larger class.
Stages of Development.
The means whereby Piaget groups together
qualitative changes in schemes.
The stages are characterized by four
criteria:
(a)
qualitative
invariant sequence, (c)
changes,
(b)
culturally
universal
inclusion of the cognitive structures of the
preceding stage in the subsequent stage, and (d)
the integration of
the structures of each stage.
Linear Perspective.
A Piagetian task involving the concept of a
straight line as the child attempts to relate objects spatially.
Logical
Classification.
A
Piagetian
task
involving
the
organization of objects into classes.
Spatial Ordering.
ordering.
Piaget
A Piagetian task that relates to topological
stated
that
topological
concepts
relate
to
proximity and separation with spatial ordering as the third concept.
Supervisors.
A term that includes students, parents and teachers
as well as caregivers involved in child-care centers or in nursing.
Administrators.
A
term
that
includes
certified
personnel
in
public or private schools.
Limitations
For the purposes of this study, the following limitations were
established:
1.
The
number
of
participants,
the
group
from
Texas
Tech
composed of faculty and students, and the four groups of psychology
students from Midland College, who responded to the videotape, was
determined by availability and willingness to participate.
2.
The videotape that was developed as the basis for this study
was limited to the taping of forty children who were four- through
8
seven-years-old.
The developmental
characteristics
limited
Piagetian
that
to
four
tasks,
included
videotaped
ordering,
were
linear
perspective, class inclusion, and logical classification.
3.
The
number
of
children
involved
was
necessarily
limited
because of the difficulty of videotaping large numbers.
The number
was
of
deemed
sufficient
to
allow
the
random
selection
twenty
segments to be used for the assessment by the five groups, one from
Texas Tech and the four from Midland College.
There was no reason to
believe that the addition of other tasks or an increase in the number
of participants in the five groups or the number of children to be
videotaped
would
produce
significant
differences
in
the
study's
results (Gaines, Note 1 ) .
Basic Assumptions
For the purposes of this study, the following assumptions were
made:
1.
Inasmuch as Piagetian tasks relate to material not normally
taught, it was assumed that the children had had no prior instruction
in performing the specific tasks that were introduced.
2.
The children's responses were assumed to be indicators of the
cognitive ability of the individual for that particular task.
3.
assumed
No age
that
indicators
the
stage
appeared
level
was
on
the
based
videotape,
solely
on
so
the
it
was
child's
performance during the videotaped segment.
4.
It was assumed that the technical aspects of the videotaping
would not adversely influence the determination of the stage level of
the child—at least all observing groups would have equal opportunity
to assess stage level.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The study is organized
the introduction,
into five chapters.
statement
Chapter I contains
of the problem, purpose of the study,
definition of terms, limitations, and basic assumptions.
Chapter II presents a review of literature that relates to stage
development
assessment
according
to
Piaget,
a
review
of
four
Piagetian task, and the availability of assessment tools to determine
skills of students, parents, teachers and caregivers in determining
stage development of four- through seven-year-olds as demonstrated by
performance
of
Piagetian
tasks.
The
last
section
discusses
the
importance of Piagetian theory to administrators.
Chapter
problem,
III presents
source
of
data,
the methods of the study, review of the
selection
of
children,
procedures
for
videotaping and viewing the videotape.
Chapter IV presents the analysis of the data and the results.
Chapter V includes conclusions, implications, recommendations and
summary of the study.
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF PIAGETIAN LITERATURE
The first part of this chapter contains a review of literature
relating
to
cognitive
the
works
development
of
Jean
occurs
Piaget.
gradually,
Piaget
and
recognized
that
children
certain capabilities at more or less definite times.
stage
development
qualitative
relates
changes
in
to
"a
schemes"
means
of
(Brainerd,
that
achieve
His concept of
grouping
together
1978, p.30).
When a
child is at a particular stage of development, it is an indication
that certain cognitive structures are present.
The child moves to
the next stage when changes in the cognitive structures occur.
Piaget
postulated
development
that
sensorimotor,
operations.
four
evidenced
stages
or
specific
preoperational,
periods
cognitive
concrete
in
human
skills,
operations,
mental
including:
and
formal
Although children advance from one stage to the next at
different rates, as their mental structures develop, Piaget believed
that the sequence of stages remains invariant.
The emphasis of this study is on the preoperational child and the
tasks that Piaget observed as indicators of levels of cognitive stage
development
criteria,
of children.
and
results
The
of
second
four
tasks
Piagetian observation of children.
availability
supervisors
of assessment
of children
section
that
includes
have
been
procedures,
based
upon
The third section explores the
tools that can be used successfully by
including
students, parents, teachers, and
f^ "
4^ T
11
caregivers.
Fourth
section
discusses
the
importance
of
Piagetian
theory to administrators.
Introduction to Piaget and His Works
Born on August 9, 1896 in Neuchatel, Switzerland, Piaget at an
early
age
expressed
sciences.
Piaget's
an
interest
attention
in
to
nature
and
biological
the
biological
structures
even
as
related to mental schema was evident from the beginning of his work.
A
knowledge
of
understanding
Piaget's
of
his
biological
concepts
background
of
mental
strengthens
structures
interaction of maturation and the environment.
and
the
the
From his biological
orientation, Piaget developed his theoretical perspectives of stage
development in young children.
In
1916
Piaget
completed
undergraduate
work
in
the
natural
sciences and two years later at the age of 21, received the degree of
Doctor
of
Philosophy
psychology.
Binet
aware
of
in
in
Paris.
of a metrical
the difficulties
intelligence.
tests
his
attention
to
the
study
Binet's
scale of
research
centered
intelligence.
of measuring
the actual
on
of
to determine
of
the
mental
success
age
as a function
become
a
"rapid
the
Binet was well
mechanisms
In collaboration with Simon, Binet developed
order
determination
turned
In 1920 Piaget worked with Dr. Theophile Simon in the
Laboratory
development
and
diverse
of age.
and
of
The
convenient
estimation of an individual's general level" (Piaget, 1959, p. 153).
These standardized
tests required
precise wording of the questions
12
and an exact order of presentation.
The examiner was not allowed to
deviate from the accepted procedure.
In this way each subject was
presented the same problem in the same manner.
Any differences in
the performance of the subject indicated a difference in intelligence.
. Piaget decided not to continue his work in the development of
these standardized
tests because the tests focused on the correct
answer given by the subject.
Piaget found the incorrect answers more
fascinating, and he noticed different kinds of wrong answers based on
the age of the subject.
decided
his
future
(Brainerd, 1978).
brighter
than
younger
in
the
He concluded
younger
children
children.
was
He moved
in directions of his own and
study
children's
intelligence
that older children were not just
subjects, but
was
of
qualitatively
that
the
different
thought
from
pattern of
that
of
older
He then rejected the idea of a quantitative definition of
intelligence
based
on
intelligence
testing
in
favor
of
a
qualitatively based intelligence.
Piaget believed that standardized test methods were too rigid and
often failed to determine the precise information needed if the child
failed
to understand
method
that
patterns
were
questioning.
the question,
allowed
followed
He
extreme
without
turned
to
so he adopted
flexibility.
regard
the
the psychiatric
child's
thought
to a preconceived
plan of
real
The
problem
with
defining
intelligence, which was to discover how children think at various
ages.
He
began
his
investigation
of
intelligence
by
observing
and
13
meticulously
recording
the
actions
of
his
own
three
children,
Jacqueline, Lucienne, and Laurent (Brainerd, 1978).
Piaget
began
examination
his
study
of the origins
of
intelligence
of the mind and biological organizations.
by an
He found a
continuity exists between intelligence and "biological processes of
morphogenesis and
adaptation to the environment"
(Piaget,
1969,
p. 1 ) . The formation and differentiation of organs and tissue allows
this
adaptation
to
take
place.
These
hereditary
factors
are
structural and are connected with the nervous system and the senses.
The organism then adapts by constructing new forms to fit those of
the environment.
Intelligence "extends this creation by constructing
mentally structures which can be applied to those of the environment"
(Piaget, 1969, p. 4 ) .
invariant
elements.
In mental development there are variable and
The
variable
structures
are
a
continuous
creation that can be observed between the child and the adult, but
the main
functions
examination
between
two
Biologists
of
the
thought
patterns
of the invariant operations
biological
define
functions:
adaptation
as
remain
constant.
An
indicates the relationship
organization
preservation
and
adaptation.
and
survival.
Adaptation occurs when the organism is transformed by the environment
resulting in an increase in the interaction between the environment
and the organism.
Every
response toward
the outside world
or an
internalized thought takes on the form of adaptation (Piaget, 1959).
In
biology
and
in
intelligence,
this
adaptation
equilibrium between assimilation and accommodation"
is
"an
(Piaget, 1969,
14
p. 6 ) . Assimilation is the incorporation of new ideas into earlier
schemata and accommodations.
Adaptation is possible only when there
is equilibrium between accommodation and assimilation.
Not only must
adaptation
which
take
place
but
also
organization
in
intellectual operation is related to all others.
of implications and interconnected meanings.
to things
that thought
organizes
every
There is a system
Thus it is "by adapting
itself and
it is by
organizing
itself that it structures things" (Piaget, 1969, p. 8 ) .
Piaget's Impact on Educational Administration
The study of the theories of Piaget concerning intelligence and
the determination that persons can reliably assess individual levels
have implications for education.
This potential
for education has
scarcely been acknowledged, and only recently have educators begun to
appreciate
1969).
the importance of Piaget's theories
(Ginsburg & Opper,
Study of Piaget's work provides insight as to why educators
should not view the child as a miniature adult, but as a child with a
mental
adult.
structure
that
is qualitatively
different
from that of an
The child's view of the world is unique, and in order for
teachers to understand the child in the classroom, knowledge of this
mental
structure
is
not
only
important
but
essential
for
the
potential of optimal learning in the educational setting.
To educate this child best the teacher must have some knowledge
of the stage of development of any given child.
What is valid for
the teacher is not necessarily valid for the child; what is simple
15
and self-evident for the adult may be difficult or impossible for the
child.
Educators may discover that it is not safe to make general-
izations that adult experiences are applicable to those of a child,
for assumptions based on adult learning experiences may not apply to
those
of
a child.
Educators
need
to try
to
improve
their
own
capabilities to watch and listen so that they can become cognizant of
the unique perspective of the child (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969).
New
approaches
on
learning
are
important
not
only
for
the
teacher, but for the administrator who is responsible for directing
training programs to implement new teaching techniques.
Concerns in
education relate to individual differences and to the best teaching
methods that enhance each individual's uniqueness.
William
Clark Trow described a third-grade classroom
in which
some of the students were functioning on the first-grade level while
some were
on
the
sixth-grade
developmental
span
instruction.
Instructional
level
necessitates
(Ladas, 1980).
the
methods
provision
that
The
of
ignore
six-year
individual
individual
differences cannot possibly be efficient methods of education (Ladas,
1980).
The
address
importance
the
of
needs
of
the
the
responsibilities
individual
of
and
administrators
to
improve
achievement is evidenced by many reports and studies.
Risk,
the
report
of
the
National
Commission
on
to
student
A Nation at
Excellence
in
Education (1983), addressed the importance of the principal and the
superintendent in providing the necessary leadership to address all
^^
16
of
the
aspects
recommendations
of
the
related
educational
to diagnostic
process.
One
of
the
procedures that would assist
teachers in evaluating student progress.
Additionally,
school
laws have mandated
the mission of public
education as it relates to the needs and development of each student.
Effective school research has become one of the most debated and
researched
topics
in education.
The
studies
those
schools
that
are
outcomes.
One
have
in common
identification
of
producing
high
student
indicated
by the number of in-service programs designed to assist
school
faculties
in
implementing
unusually
effective
the
in
result of this research is
school
improvement
programs.
However, Wilbur Brookover et al., found that no matter how effective,
programs do not change schools, people change schools (1982).
To facilitate changes, in-service education for teachers must be
structured by administrators in ways that will increase the chances
that the content will be accepted and implemented in the classroom.
The traditional emphasis on the psychology of individual differences
of
the
child
stresses
genetic
ability
and
the home
environment.
Nevertheless, schools should adjust their curricula and instruction
to each
individual
child.
That
is the message of the
effective
schools research.
The
school
principal
has
direct
instruction and learning in his school.
leadership Wellisch
responsibility
for
improving
Research on effective school
(1978, July) indicated
that schools were more
likely to show gains in achievement where instructional programs were
coordinated by school administrators.
Edmonds & Fredericksen (1978)
17
concluded that there are tangible and indispensable characteristics
of effective
schools that are directly attributable to the school
leadership.
Brookover & Lezotte (1977) found marked differences in effective
schools and those that were ineffective.
who
emphasized
instruction
and
Those with strong leaders
student
achievement
were
most
effective.
As a leader, the administrator must seek an understanding of the
available learning theories and how they might be implemented by his
teachers so that every child is taught by the best possible method.
Of the many theories relating to learning processes that have been
postulated,
Piaget's
theory
seems
particularly
applicable
in
the
determination of individual differences.
Although
Piagetian theory has been generally accepted, critics
have expressed concern for Piaget's disdain for statistical methods.
As more
vocal.
of
his
studies
are
replicated,
the critics
become
less
Other criticisms were his careless reporting of data, failure
to report the way in which examples were chosen and reliance on few
cases.
valuable
Piaget believed that one case carefully investigated was more
than
scattered
data
collected
on a number
of subjects.
However, in his later work, Piaget did take this criticism to heart
with positive results.
If the theories of Piaget apply to education, surely they can
supply some of the necessary help and guidance for the teachers in
early education.
18
When a child begins school, must we take his
'intelligence' (as indicated, say, by an IQ test)
as something fixed and immutable, representing
what the child is—and must we therefore settle
for equipping him with whatever competencies such
an intelligence is capable of bearing? Or is it
possible to assume that the ability to think and
to learn is in itself a growing thing and
therefore cultivable? In the first case we must
content
ourselves
with
whatever
harvest
or
knowledge and skill we can garner from a mind
'naturally' either fertile or barren.
In the
second, it may be wiser to work at preparing the
seed bed. (Furth, 1970, p. xi)
Piaget has provided the research not only to prepare the seed bed but
to cultivate and produce the best possible harvest.
The works of Piaget from 1929-1939 clearly show that there is a
systematic development of logical, numerical, and geometric concepts
that occur from the preschool age through the elementary grades.
If
this is indeed true, teachers would be better able to aid children in
mental structural changes as they develop mathematical skills rather
than a mere
rote presentation
of the concept.
With
such under-
standing of how to apply the works of Piaget, it should be possible
to
make
recommendations
curriculum
1978).
content,
However,
concerning
materials, and
if educators
are
the
teaching
sequencing
strategies
to benefit
of
topics,
(Brainerd,
from knowledge and
understanding of the theories of Piaget concerning how information is
processed by the child, they need to have a means whereby the child's
stage of cognitive development can be determined.
= -*.,». i--.^.,-*^
iv.
19
Review of Four Piagetian Tasks
A review of Piaget's work revealed many experiments or tasks that
he carried
out with
the
children
in order
child.
Fifteen
to
understand
tasks
were
better
the
perspective
of
selected
and
administered
subjects four through seven years of age (Gaines, Note
1) and four of those tasks were selected and videotaped for use in
this
study.
necessary
Selection was determined
materials,
ease
in
understandability of the task.
by the availability
administering
the
task,
of the
and
the
The most important criterion for the
selection was concern with whether the task demonstrated the three
stages of development in the four- through seven-year-old children.
Task 1:
Ordering
The relation of proximity is the most fundamental characteristic
whereby
one
understands
the
notion
of
space
(Inhelder
& Piaget,
1967).
In a linear series, the relationship of proximity between
different elements provides a basis for the ordering of the items.
The task pertaining to order was chosen as the first videotaped task.
Piaget described the task as consisting of the reproduction of a
simple linear order and the ability to establish reverse ordering.
To administer the task, seven or nine varicolored beads were placed
on a string or rod and additional beads were available to the child.
More
beads
were
available
than
appeared
on
the
reproduction was not made by absence of choice.
model,
Piaget
that the beads be large and easily handled wooden beads.
so
that
suggested
Each child
20
was asked to name the colors of the beads.
The administrator of the
task then requested the child to string the beads in the same order
as the model.
If that was accomplished, the child was asked to place
the beads in the reverse order.
Inhelder
development
&
Piaget
of
the
(1967) discerned
children
who
three
stages
participated
of
in
cognitive
the
task.
Eliminating a Stage 0, he described behaviors of persons within the
three stages as:
Stage 1 — T h e child places the items irrespective of order.
Stage 2 — T h e child
is capable of establishing a simple
linear
relationship.
Stage 3 — T h e child
demonstrate
not only understands
comprehension
linear order, but can
ofoperational
correspondence
of
reversals.
The results of Piaget's study indicated that children of three to
four years of age placed the same objects on the rod or string, but
paid no attention to order.
In Stage 1 the child pairs elements but
cannot coordinate the pairs.
The child has not developed the degree
of motor coordination necessary to keep a sense of direction.
2 is reached by children four to six years of age.
capable of making
relationships
direction.
ordered
between
Stage
The child becomes
correspondences, and has a knowledge of
proximity,
separation,
and
the
sense
of
Midway between Stage 2 and Stage 3, the child is able to
construct the reverse order in a rather uncertain fashion primarily
by trial and error.
By the time the child is six or seven, he is in
21
Stage 3.
The reverse order is now made immediately, no longer by
trial and error, but by a reversible operation of thought.
Children
see the order between members of a series as part of the whole and
can construct the series in either direction.
Task 2:
Linear Perspective
The second
task was
selected
concept of the straight line.
to show the development
of the
A child learns to perceive a straight
line very early in life (Inhelder & Piaget, 1967).
"The concept of
the straight line results from the child's first attempts to relate
objects
spatially
co-ordinates"
in
a
system
of
projective
(Inhelder
&
Piaget,
1967,
p.
viewpoints
155).
The
task
or
is
designed to show the vast difference between the ability to recognize
straight lines perceptually and to construct a straight line through
the action of taking aim.
For
this
task,
Inhelder
&
Piaget
represented telephone poles on a table.
(1967)
placed
sticks
that
Two of the poles were placed
either
20, 30, or 40 cm apart
table.
The child was then instructed to place the poles so that they
formed one straight line.
equidistant
from the edge of the
If that task was successfully completed,
the two end sticks were placed at an oblique angle.
The child was
instructed to form one straight line at an angle to the two adjacent
sides of the square table.
Inhelder
&
Piaget
(1967)
development of linear perspective.
determined
three
stages
in
the
22
Stage 1 — T h e
child is unable to form a straight line even when
the poles are placed so that the child can use the edge of the
table as a guide.
Stage 2 — T h e child can form the straight line using the edge of
the table as a guide, but cannot form a straight line when the
poles are placed at an angle to the edge of the table.
Stage 3 — T h e child can construct a straight line no matter what
the pole placement is.
The child will aim and then straighten
the line accordingly.
Piaget established the behaviors present in the children in three
distinct stages.
Stage 1 (up to four years) is characterized by the
child's inability to form a straight line.
It is clear that children
in Stage 1 can recognize a straight line, but they are unable to
construct the line even using the table edge as a guide.
They may be
able to succeed when they are allowed to construct the line by the
side
of an
existing model, but they have no understanding
of a
straight line and verbally they do not understand the meaning of the
word
straight,
only
the word
line.
They
are
unable
to draw a
straight line and if the two posts are placed 2 or 3 cm from the edge
of the table they fail completely in the construction of a straight
line.
Proximity is indispensable in constructing the straight line
because as the posts are more widely separated, the line becomes more
and more irregular until it ceases to be a line at all.
Stage 1 then
is characterized as the "absence of representation of the straight
line
. . . which
can
be formed
so long as the elements
remain
vU3>i lasiiiSiaa lUi..-...
23
sufficiently 'near' each other" (Inhelder & Piaget, 1967, p. 160).
By Stage
2 (four
to seven) the child
can arrange the sticks
parallel with the edge of the table, but as yet cannot overcome the
influence of the edge of the table in the construction of the line
when the posts are placed at an angle.
Toward the end of Stage 2 the
child begins to be liberated from the influence of the edge of the
table, may construct the straight line by trial and error, and and
eventually forms lines independent of the edge of the table. The
child perfects the technique of visual alignment in which he sights
or takes aim.
At this point, the child moves into Stage 3. At the
third stage, the child around seven years of age carries out sighting
and has no difficulty in achieving the proper alignment of the posts.
Task 3: Class Inclusion
The
third
task
selected
involved
the study
of the additive
composition of classes as in the inclusion of partial classes (A and
A') into a wider class (B). To study the problem of conservation of
quantities, it is necessary to study the relationships between some
and all in order "to bring out the element of quantification inherent
in any addition, either of classes or numbers" (Piaget, 1965, p. 162).
Piaget designed a task in which B was a set of objects forming a
logical class definable in purely qualitative terms, and A and A' as
parts of that set forming subclasses also definable in qualitative
terms.
The problem put to the child was then that of discovering
whether there were more elements in B than in A, or in other words.
•mSi y.
-''fev. ..
24
whether class B was wider than its subclass A (Piaget, 1965).
For
this task there were nine wooden beads (class B) of which seven were
brown (class A) and two white (class A ' ) . The task demonstrated the
most elementary form of the additive composition of classes.
Which
necklace would a child perceive as longer—a necklace made of all the
brown beads or one made of all the wooden beads?
The problem proved
very difficult for the children who were four to six years old.
In
order to help the child understand the relationship between A, A',
and B, the child was also asked to put the brown beads into an empty
box and to determine if there would be any beads left on the table.
Again, the child was asked if a necklace of brown beads or one of
wooden beads would be longer.
of
the
additive
flowers.
The
classes,
flowers
three bluebells.
To further establish the relationship
Piaget
contained
used
various
subclasses
materials
of twenty
such
poppies
as
and
The task was to determine if the child perceived
more flowers or more poppies.
the results were similar.
No matter what materials were used,
Irrespective of the materials used, Piaget
(1965) determined three stages of cognitive development.
Stage 1 — T h e child is not capable of understanding that the class
will always contain more elements that the subclasses.
He does
not understand that the class is formed by the addition of the
subclasses.
Stage 2--The child gradually begins to understand
contain
discovery
more
elements
intuitively
than
do
(Piaget,
subclasses,
1965).
but
When
that classes
he makes
he
is
able
this
to
25
visualize the necklaces or sets, he finds that B is larger than
A,
but
he
has
yet
to
reach
this
conclusion
through
an
understanding of addition of classes.
Stage 3 — T h e child
knows
immediately
that the class is larger
than a subclass because he approaches the problem from the point
of view of additive composition.
When Piaget conducted the tasks, he found that a child younger
than seven or eight had a great deal of difficulty
including one
subclass into another so that the total class is wider than either of
the subclasses.
The task was selected to illustrate the inability of
the child to understand the particular concept.
Task 4:
Classification
As early as 6 to 8 months and lasting until 18 to 24 months,
behavior
patterns
classification
were
and
found
seriation"
"which
are
(Inhelder
&
suggestive
Piaget,
both
of
1964, p. 13).
Children were given familiar objects, and they immediately recognized
uses
for the objects.
familiar
schemata
object.
This
classification.
If the object was new, the child
in an attempt
behavior
Children
to understand
indicates
also
show
a
an
the nature
rudimentary
ability
to
applied
of the
form
stack
of
similar
objects together at a very early age (Piaget, 1964).
The task on classification that Piaget proposed involved the use
of flat geometric shapes.
two
blue
circles,
two
The shapes consisted of two red circles,
red
squares,
two
blue
squares,
two
red
26
triangles, and two blue triangles.
Each colored set contained one
figure that was larger than the other one.
the objects
that
he used,
the questions
Although Piaget varied
remained
the same.
The
children were asked to put the geometric figures together in a stack
or group so that they were the same in some way.
Depending on how
the materials were grouped, the participants could be placed
into
three stages of development.
Stage
1—The
stage
collections.
The
is
characterized
elements
by
are arranged
the
use
so that
of
graphic
they
form a
configuration.
Stage 2—This stage emerges when the child can make a non-graphic
collection
based
on
similarity
and differences
alone
so that
class membership is apparent while class inclusion is not.
Stage 3 — T h e child has reached the third stage when hierarchical
classification
based
on
logical
operations
determines
the
grouping of the elements (Inhelder & Piaget, 1964).
Piaget found that children in Stage 1 might place a triangle on a
square as a roof to a house because he sees this as the relationship
between
the elements.
Those
in Stage 2 could
successfully
group
using one category, but they experienced difficulty in varying the
groupings.
manners.
and
found
In
Stage
3 the
child
could
group
in
a
variety
of
Piaget used a small sample of 36 subjects aged five to nine
that
classifications
the
based
younger
children
formed
their
first
set
of
on shape in twenty-two cases, size in three
cases, and only one was based on color.
However, the older children
27
aged seven to nine were most likely to group in a variety of ways
including color.
Availability of Assessment Tools
A review of the Piagetian
literature explains explicitly that
children go through distinct stages in the development of cognitive
skills.
If
educators
are
to
use
this
information
in
the
most
beneficial manner for the children entrusted to them, there must be a
way
to determine whether
cognitive
abundant
development
available
of
or
not
children.
audio-visual
theory was developed
educators
can assess
Unfortunately,
material
that
stages
none
depicts
of
of
the
Piagetian
for the purpose of educational assessment of
young children.
Summary
This chapter first included a review of the works of Jean Piaget
that
pertained
to
this
study.
The
next
section
discussed
the
specific tasks that were to be videotaped as part of this study and
the
criteria
chapter
for
concluded
assessment tools.
determining
with
levels
remarks
of
stage
concerning
the
development.
availability
The
of
28
CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology used
in the study.
The first section of the chapter reestablishes the
purpose and questions addressed by the study.
This is followed by
the source of the data, selection of the children, procedures for
videotaping and viewing the tape, and the summary.
Rationale for the Study
The
need
confidence
of
for
this
study
was
apparent
due
students, parents, teachers, and
to
the
lack
caregivers
of
in the
assessment of stages in the sequential development of children.
Some children develop at a faster rate than do their peers, but
Piaget did not see intellectual development as a race.
Rather, he
viewed development as the passage of the child through a sequence of
stages.
each
If supervisors of children know the developmental stage of
child, they may
events and
better
solve problems.
understand
how each child
interprets
The concern of teachers should
be to
design instruction so that it will be the most meaningful for each
child (Cowan, 1978).
different
experience
Because children may be in different stages in
areas, it is difficult
for
each
child
to find the correct
in each
area.
Knowledge
educational
of
cognitive
stages can be helpful (Piaget, 1969).
In order to formulate a method whereby supervisors of children
29
could determine their own abilities to assess children's levels of
stage
development,
a
children's
responses
development
elicited
videotape
to
tasks
was
that
by each task.
produced
that
demonstrated
illustrated
their
level
The study established
of
to what
extent knowledge of Piaget's theories would affect the ability to
assess stage development.
expertise
was
supervisor
necessary,
to assess
If the study indicated a high level of
it would
be
difficult
stage development.
for
the
average
However, if persons with
limited knowledge of Piaget could assess development as readily as
those with more knowledge and experience, supervisors would be able
to determine
During
the
development
learning
process
for
each
experiences
best
study
established
child
as
suited
the
determined
to the
stage
individual.
of
by a team
cognitive
composed
of
faculty members and students from Texas Tech University who were well
versed
in Piagetian theory.
The videotape allowed students with a
wide range of knowledge of Piaget and the team from Texas Tech to
view the same children doing Piagetian tasks, assess the stage of
development
in each
segment, and
compare
the results.
Thus, the
necessary level of expertise for determining stage levels of children
could be determined.
Source of Data
The
studio
videotape
at
soundproof
for
Midland
facility
this
College
was
study
where
was
produced
equipment
available,
and
in the
could
there
be
were
television
accessed, a
no
outside
30
distractions.
Permission was obtained from the appropriate Midland
College administrators and a time schedule approved.
the videotaping
and
technical
Assistants for
aspects were provided
by radio and
television classes and the media center at Midland College.
Students
enrolled
in child
growth
and development
classes at
Midland College administered tasks, served as monitors, and recorded
data.
Selection of Children
Age was the only factor controlled for in the selection of the
children.
The age span for the participating children was determined
by three factors.
First, the span had to be broad enough so that all
three stages of development for each task were likely to be present.
Second,
the
children
were
old
enough
to
predict
probably reached the first stage for each task.
that
they
had
Third, the limits of
the age span were set so that the number of children involved could
be
feasibly
included
and
yet
large
enough
to
prevent
determination of stage by the appearance of the child.
1) determined
that four- through
the
Gaines (Note
seven-year-old children
satisfied
these requirements.
Subjects
College
were
from
students, and
child
friends
care
centers,
of the
children
researcher.
The
of
Midland
researcher
contacted the parents or responsible person of forty children, fourthrough
seven-years-old, and gave them a letter (Appendix A) that
stated the purpose of the videotaping and and its schedule (Appendix
"5!^"—^ ^ T
31
B).
A code was assigned to each participant.
The time and location
of videotaping was given to each participant and
proper form.
recorded
on the
The top half of the form was returned to the researcher
and the bottom half of the form was retained as a reminder for the
participants.
An additional reminder in the form of a telephone call
was made the day before the filming.
data
(Appendix
C)
and
a
model
A sheet requesting demographic
release
form
(Appendix
D)
were
completed for each participant at the time of the videotaping.
For
this study, the name, age, birth date, address and telephone number
of each child were collected.
For convenience and confidentiality of
data, all subjects were consecutively numbered.
In
order
to
preoperational
understand
better
the mental
of
the
child, students in the child growth and development
classes at Midland College administered
who were
structures
four- through
seven-years-old
Piagetian tasks to children
(Rainbolt, Note 2 ) .
From
these tasks, the researcher (Gaines, Note 1) chose the four tasks
that
illustrated
another.
order,
The
best the passage of children
four
linear
classification.
instructions
information
tasks
chosen
perspective,
for
class
the
from one stage to
videotape were:
inclusion,
and
linear
logical
A kit was assembled that contained the materials and
for administering
the task and a card
for each child and each task could
on which
be recorded.
the
The
first name and age of the child were recorded as well as the name of
the task and
the
information was
location of the segment on the videotape.
later used
The
in the random selection of the twenty
32
segments that were viewed by the five groups: the Texas Tech team
composed of faculty and students who were well versed in Piagetian
theory and the Midland College groups composed of psychology students
at various levels of knowledge of Piaget.
Procedure for Videotaping
The same procedure was followed for the eight afternoon sessions
that were scheduled for the videotaping of 40 subjects.
Each session
had
and
three
camera
administrator.
operators,
a monitor,
a
recorder,
a
task
Each child was issued a badge containing the code,
and each monitor had a chart indicating the order of videotaping.
When the five children arrived for the videotaping, the monitor and
recorder were responsible for checking the forms for completeness,
presenting the child for the videotaping at the appropriate time, and
monitoring the child so that the child was unable to view or discuss
the task.
The task administrator was responsible for the procedure,
kit, and the actual administration of the task.
It was desirable to
have people assisting with the videotape who had some knowledge of
Piaget.
In order to obtain those volunteers, participation by the
students satisfied the research requirement for the child growth and
development course.
The following procedure was used for each of the eight sessions.
Each of the 40 children was administered the four Piagetian tasks.
The first task related to a concept of space.
In the study of
space the nearness of an object or proximity is the first topological
notion.
yj..
Separation
of
one
object
from
another
is
the
second
33
relationship and the third is the concept of order or sequence.
first
task
was
selected
to
demonstrate
the
child's
The
topological
relation of order, and to determine at what age a child reaches each
of the three stages of development concerning order or sequence. ^
The administrator
had
the following
materials
for Task 1:
A
model consisting of eight varicolored beads on a shoelace, a set of
loose beads containing twelve varicolored beads (eight like those on
the
string
and
four
duplicates),
and
another
shoelace.
The
additional beads prevented reproduction by lack of choice.
Each child was brought to the television studio, seated in the
proper place, made comfortable, and then the administrator proceeded
accordingly:
Each child was shown the string of beads and care was
taken that the child recognized the different colors of the beads.
The child was then asked to make a string of beads just like the
model.
The child was shown the model and given a shoelace and the
set of twelve varicolored beads.
The child was then asked to choose
from the group of beads and place them on the shoelace just like the
model.
If the child did not seem to understand, the question was
repeated.
If necessary, the first bead was pointed to for additional
clarity.
If the child duplicated the model successfully, the child
was then asked to place the beads so that they were placed in the
reverse of the model.
The child was again shown the model.
If the
child needed additional instructions, the term backward was used, and
in some cases the row was started with the last bead and a motion in
a
backward
or
reverse direction was given.
At no time did
the
34
administrator indicate the correctness of the response.
After the five children completed Task 1, the videotaping of Task
2
began.
Task
2 also
involved
the
concept
of
space.
Task
demonstrated the construction of the projective straight line.
2
The
task is limited in scope, but according to Inhelder & Piaget:
...nothing is more suited to illustrating
the vast difference between perceptual and
representational space than to see how
backward in imagining or constructing a
straight line are children who have long
been able to recognize straight lines
perceptually (1967, p. 156).
The materials for the task consisted of 15 5" sticks which had
been
placed
in round
bases
(Tinker
Toys).
properly situated, the administrator began.
After
each
child
was
The child was shown the
Tinker Toys, and two of them were placed about 30" apart along the
edge of the table.
The child was then asked to pretend that the
sticks were telephone poles and instructed to make a telephone line
by placing the remaining poles between the two Tinker Toys that had
been placed on the table.
Some of the children placed the Tinker
Toys on the side so the administrator asked them to stand the poles
up.
If this part of the task was successfully completed, the poles
were placed
so that they were diagonal
to the edge of the table.
Again, the child was asked to make a telephone line by putting the
poles
between
table.
Each
straight
the two which
time
line.
the child
had
been
was
asked
When the five children
placed
at an angle on the
if the poles were in one
had completed
Task 2, the
35
administrator proceeded to Task 3.
Task 3 related to the concepts of number and specifically to the
task of class inclusion.
Children learn addition, subtraction, and
multiplication,- but the learning is frequently verbal without real
understanding
determine
selected
a
of
the
child's
relationships
between
understanding
of
numbers.
In order
relationships.
to demonstrate the additive composition
Task
3
of classes.
to
was
The
materials used were seven brown wooden beads and two white wooden
beads, two shoelaces, and two boxes.
Each of the five children was shown the beads and told that the
beads were made of wood.
When this concept was firmly established,
the child was asked, "Which necklace would be longer—one made of all
the wooden beads or one made of all the brown beads?"
No matter
which answer the child gave, he was asked to explain his answer.
If
the response indicated a lack of understanding of the composition of
the beads, the child was asked again what the beads were made of.
Once again, it was stressed that all the beads, brown and white, were
made of wood.
The question was asked again, "What are the brown
beads made of. What are the white beads were made of?" to establish
again that all of the beads were made of wood.
The beads and a box
were then placed on the table, and the child was asked, "If all the
brown beads were put in the box, would there be any beads left on the
table?"
The child was then given a box and told to put all of the
brown beads in the box.
left on the table?"
The question was asked "Are there any beads
The child was then asked the original question.
36
"If I made a necklace of all the wooden beads and a necklace of all
the
brown
beads, which
would
be
longer?"
An explanation
of
the
answer was again requested.
The
five
children
then
logical classification.
classification.
participated
in Task
4 pertaining
The specific task chosen involved
Inhelder
&
Piaget
and
(1958,
p.
to
additive
xi)
were
"particularly concerned to establish the precise relation between the
classification of children and the kinds of inferences that they make
on
the
basis
of
these
classifications."
The necessary
materials
included two large and two small circles, squares and triangles of
which one in each category was red and the other was blue.
Each
of the five children was asked
stacks so that they were alike in some way.
to group the objects
in
No matter what criterion
was used for the grouping, the child was always asked to indicate
what was alike in each particular grouping and then asked if he could
group in any other manner.
The child was encouraged to make as may
groups as he desired.
In administering each of the four tasks, variations were made in
the questions since the most important point was an assurance that
the true level of comprehension of the child for the specific task
was indicated in the videotape.
After each of the five children was videotaped
in response to
this procedure, the monitors and recorders rechecked the forms for
completeness,
thanked
those
returned
involved.
the
child
This
to
same
the
responsible
procedure
was
party,
used
for
and
the
37
remaining 35 subjects.
The researcher served as the administrator in
25
and
of
the
segments,
development
class
volunteers
participated
as
from
the
child
growth
the task administrator
for
and
the
additional 15 segments (Appendix E ) . These segments were videotaped
toward the end of the semester after the students had completed the
course
work
in
which
the
preoperational
stage
of
development,
according to Piaget, had been studied.
Prior to serving as administrators, the four volunteers viewed
the previously completed videotape to familiarize themselves with the
tasks.
Each
administrator
was
assigned
one
of
the tasks, given
procedural instructions, and provided with a kit of materials for the
administration of the task.
Four students and the researcher went to
St. Luke's Child Care Center in Midland, Texas, where permission had
been
obtained
(Appendix
F) to administer
children
(one in each age group).
task
each
to
of
the
administering the task.
four
the four tasks
to four
Each volunteer administered one
children
to
determine
competency
in
Competency was determined by the researcher.
At the conclusion of the eight videotaping sessions, the cards
containing the name of each child and the task videotaped were placed
in stacks by tasks resulting in four groupings.
Randomly selected
numbers determined which segment was used for each task.
segments
were
chosen
from each
After five
task group, a check was made to
determine if there was a representative of each stage for each task
according to the assessment using the criteria according to Piaget.
Adjustment
in
the
selections
was
made
if
each
stage
was
not
38
represented.
An additional
random selection was made to determine
the order of presentation on the final videotape.
The videotape was
edited to 20 segments randomly selected and placed in random order.
Procedure for Viewing the Videotape
The
resulting
videotape
was
sent
to
Dr.
Connie
Steele,
Chairperson of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies
in the College of Home Economics at Texas Tech University in Lubbock,
Texas.
She selected
a group of 23 Texas Tech University
members and students—recognized
faculty
as well versed in the theoretical
perspectives of Jean Piaget--who viewed the videotape to determine
the
stage
level
depicted
by the 20 children
in the 20
randomly
selected segments.
The videotape was also viewed
Midland College in Midland, Texas.
by four groups
of
students
at
The makeup of these four groups
consisted of students, students and parents, students and teachers,
or
students
and
other
caregivers,
such
as
nurses
or
child-care
supervisors or other combinations.
Group
1
included
20
students
Psychology
2301
(Introduction
Psychology
2303
(Child
who
had
successfully
completed
to Psychology) and were enrolled
Growth and
Development).
in
The students had
completed the unit on Piaget and preoperational thought as presented
by Ambron
(1981).
In addition, the students had administered
the
four Piagetian tasks to ten children from the four age groups.
Group
2
was
composed
of
20
students
who
had
successfully
39
completed Psychology 2301, were enrolled in Psychology 2303, and had
completed the above specified unit, but they had not administered any
task to children.
Group 3 was composed
completed
of 20 students who had also successfully
Psychology 2301 and were enrolled in Psychology 2303 but
had not received any instruction on Piagetian theory.
Group
4 was
composed
of
students
who
had
just
enrolled
in
Psychology 2301.
All
four student groups and the Texas Tech team members
volunteers.
research
Participation
requirement
enrolled.
for
in
the
the
project
course
in
satisfied
which
part
the
were
of
the
student
was
This procedure assured the researcher an adequate number
of participants from each group to complete the project.
The same procedure for viewing the videotape was followed by all
the
groups
including
the assessment
team
from
Texas Tech.
Each
participant was given a videotape viewing schedule (Appendix G) and
assigned a date and time.
The schedule form was completed and the
top half returned to the researcher and the bottom half retained by
the
participant
videotape.
to
serve as
a
reminder
for
the
viewing
of
the
At the appointed time and place the following procedure
was used for each of the groups.
1.
A sheet requesting demographic data was distributed to each
participant (Appendix H ) .
2.
A code was assigned to each participant (Appendix I ) .
3.
The
material
to
be
used
for
determining
the
stage
of
40
development
for
distributed.
4.
the
child
in each
segment
of
the
videotape
was
to
the
(Appendix J)
The
participants
were
allowed
10
minutes
study
material.
5.
The evaluation sheets were distributed.
(Appendix K)
6.
The following instructions (Appendix L) were given and time
was allowed for questions until all participants felt sure of the
procedure.
consisting
engaged
The
procedure
of twenty
was:
"You will
segments.
Each
now
view
a
videotape
segment will depict a child
in one of four Piagetian tasks.
On the left side of the
evaluation sheet is a number and the first name of the child which
will be used to identify each segment.
There are four columns headed
by the task number as well as the name of the task.
There is an X in
the column indicating which task the child is performing.
You are to
evaluate which stage of development the child is in and place a 1, 2,
or 3 by the appropriate X.
The stage will be determined by the
criteria listed on the previously studied material.
will be allowed for the determination of the stage.
questions?
When
Sufficient time
Are there any
I will now begin the videotape."
all
twenty
segments
had
been
viewed, the evaluation and
demographic sheets were collected and checked for completeness.
The
criteria
for
sheets were collected
their participation.
and
the students were thanked
41
Summary
This chapter presented the review of the problem, the source of
the data, and the selection of the children.
This was followed by
procedures for producing and viewing the videotape.
42
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The
basic
purpose
of
this
supervisors
of
children
could
development
in
children.
In
study
was
reliably
order
videotape
showing
twenty
children
tasks was
viewed
by five groups:
to
to
assess
achieve
participating
determine
whether
Piagetian
this
stage
purpose,
in four
a
Piagetian
a Texas Tech team composed
of
faculty and students and four variously informed student groups from
Midland College.
Through an analysis of the frequency of the modes
obtained from the five groups (See Appendix M 1.1) a comparison was
obtained from the Texas Tech team that served as the correct stage
level for each child.
Next, the frequency of stage-level
responses
for each videotaped segment was summed for each of the four groups at
Midland College.
Procedures
The data collected for this study were analyzed in the following
manner:
1.
The
videotape
and
accompanying
materials
constituted
the
observation instrument.
2.
Cards
containing
the
segments were grouped by tasks.
each task was made.
information
pertaining
to
the
160
Random selection of five cards from
A check was made to determine
stages of cognitive development were represented.
if the three
If not, additional
43
random selections were made.
3.
Criteria for recognizing stage development of children were
established according to Piaget.
4.
The level of Piagetian training was used to assign membership
in one of the four student groups at Midland College.
The Texas Tech
Team was composed of faculty and students and represented the highest
level of expertise.
5.
while
Using the criteria for stage development, the Texas Tech Team
viewing
development
used
in
the
videotape
determined
each
in the performance of each task.
the
statistical
analysis
to
child's
stage
of
The information was
compare
the
assessment
capabilities of the four Midland College groups with the Texas Tech
Team.
6.
Reliability of the instrument was assessed through interjudge
agreement by the Texas Tech Team.
Statistical Tool
The
data
were
statistically
Statistical
Package
for
distribution
was determined
the
analyzed
Social
with
the
Sciences.
use
A
of
the
frequency
so that assessment abilities could
be
compared.
Frequency Distribution
A frequency distribution indicates the number of individuals in a
category on the scale of measurement.
The distribution provides an
44
organized
picture of the data (Gravetter & Wallnau, 1985).
In a
frequency distribution, the mode is the score that has the highest
frequency.
Review and Analysis of the Twenty Segments
To determine if the four groups of Midland College students could
assess reliably cognitive stages of development of the children as
well as the Texas Tech team, the videotape was analyzed by segments.
Each
of
the
twenty
behavior
of
the
child
segments
depicted
was
on
carefully
examined
the videotape was
and
the
summarized.
Possible reasons for agreement and discrepancies in the assessment of
stage levels by the different groups were analyzed.
The mode or
correct assessment level as determined by the Texas Tech Team was
compared with the mode of each of the Midland College groups.
percentage that constituted
The
this mode is shown for each group on
Table 2.
Agreement on the stage level of development was found in
seventeen
of
behaviors
displayed
together
with
the
the
segments.
on
the
five
A
description
twenty
groups'
of
videotaped
agreement
on
the
children's
segments
levels
follows
of
Stage
development demonstrated.
Segment 1 on Linear Perspective by Russell
Russell was given fifteen Tinker Toys and asked to pretend that
they were telephone poles.
apart
on
the
edge
of
Two Tinker Toys were placed about 30"
a table.
Russell
was asked
to place
the
45
thirteen
additional
telephone poles.
Tinker
Toys
in a
straight
line to
represent
He placed the toys close together beginning with
the Tinker Toy at his left, and when he had completed the task there
was a small space between his last one and those originally placed to
the right.
He checked carefully using the edge of the table as a
reference and then said the Tinker Toys were in a straight line.
Two
Tinker Toys were then placed on a diagonal, and Russell was asked to
place the remainder of the toys in one straight line.
He began at
his left, placed them close together, and left a space on the right.
When
asked
if
the
Tinker
Toys
were
in
one
straight
line,
he
straightened some of them and answered, "I want to get it straight."
The result was a slightly curved line.
The Texas Tech team placed Russell in Stage 3 by 58.3%; Group 1
and 2 agreed at the 70% level, and Group 3 and 4 at the 60% level.
The participants who placed Russell in Stage 2 may have believed that
the
line
considered
had
to
be
absolutely
the concept
straight,
of a straight
Russell was in Stage 3.
and
line as an
others
may
have
indication
that
Those that disagreed from Texas Tech and
Group 1 and 2 placed Russell in Stage 2, but 5% of Groups 3 and 4
believed he was in Stage 1.
Segment 2 on Class Inclusion by Drew
Seven brown beads and two white beads were shown to Drew, and he
was asked if he knew that the beads were made of wood.
After it was
established that they were all composed of wood. Drew was asked if
46
there were more brown beads or more wooden beads.
brown beads."
He answered, "More
Once again it was established that all the beads were
wooden, and he was asked again *^if there were more brown beads or more
wooden beads.
He answered that there were more brown beads.
He was
then asked if a necklace were made of all the brown beads and one
made of all the wooden beads which necklace would be longer.
He
again answered, "Brown beads."
The Texas Tech team placed Drew in Stage 1 by 100%, Group 1 at
70%, Group 2 and 3 at 75%, and Group 4 at 80%.
The disagreement by
some participants in each of the Midland College groups may relate to
a lack of familiarity with the criteria for the task.
Segment 3 on Logical Classification by Susie
Susie
was
shown
12
geometric
figures:
two
large
circles,
sguares, and triangles and two small circles, squares, and triangles
of which one in each group was red and the other blue.
Susie was
asked to put the objects in groups so that they were alike in some
way.
She grouped the large figure with the small one of the same
color so that she had six groups.
were
alike,
together, and
she
placed
all
the triangles
the
When asked to stack all those that
circles
together.
together,
the
squares
When asked what was alike
about each group, she answered by describing them geometrically.
Her
next grouping was by size in which she placed all the large figures
in one stack and the small ones in another.
stack
in another
way,
she could
not.
When asked if she could
Even
though
in the first
47
grouping, she had the large red circle grouped with the small red
circle, and continued that category for the other five groups, she
never did make two groups using color as the category.
All the groups placed Susie in Stage 3:
Texas Tech (100%), Group
1 (70%), Group 2 (85%), Group 3 (95%) and Group 4 (65%).
She grouped
by size and shape, but did not place the figures into two groups by
color, so some students may have believed that she was still in Stage
2.
Segment 4 on Class Inclusion by Lee Ann
Lee Ann was shown seven brown beads and two white beads and told
that all of the beads were made of wood.
She was asked if there were
more brown beads or more wooden beads.
She answered, "Brown beads."
Again
was
the
composition
of
the
beads
answered that there were more brown beads.
she thought
there were more brown
established.
Again
she
She was then asked why
beads than wooden
beads.
She
pointed to the two white beads and said that there were only two of
those, and then she counted the brown beads and said that there were
seven.
Again the guestion was asked and she insisted that there were
more brown beads.
The Texas Tech team placed Lee Ann in Stage 1 at 91.7%, Group 1
at 65%, Group 2 at 75%, Group 3 at 60%, and Group 4 at 75%.
Lee Ann
counted the beads by groups which may have indicated Stage 2 for some
participants.
48
Segment 5 on Ordering bv Suzanne
Suzanne was shown a model string of eight varicolored beads and
asked to place another group of eight beads on a string so that they
were
exactly
positively.
orange,
placed
like
The model
green,
her
the
yellow,
beads
yellow, and white.
model.
string
tan,
thus:
She
had
purple,
began
beads
very
deliberately
in the following
black, white, and
orange, green,
purple,
red.
and
order:
She
red, tan, black,
When asked if her string of beads looked exactly
like the other string of beads, she proudly announced that they were
alike.
The first two beads were the only ones in the same order as
the model.
The Texas Tech team placed Suzanne in Stage 1 at 100% as did all
of the other four groups.
A more in-depth analysis of Segments 6, 7 and 9 is necessary so
they are discussed later.
Since lack of agreement was found in the
assessment of the stage level of development of Greg, Malita, and
Chris.
Segment 8 on Linear Perspective by Amy
Amy was also asked to construct a telephone line using the Tinker
Toys.
When the two were placed on the edge of the table, she made no
attempt to place the others in a straight line.
that she could not do it.
She continually said
After a great deal of encouragement and
even helping her place some of the Tinker Toys, she did not have any
thing even vaguely resembling a straight line.
She was not asked to
49
place them on the diagonal.
The Texas Tech team and Groups 1, 2, and 3 place Amy in Stage 1
at 100% and Group 4 placed Amy in Stage 1 at 95%.
Segment 10 on Logical Classification by Shantell
When
Shantell
immediately
made
was
six
given
the
twelve
geometric
stacks.
She
placed
the
two
shapes,
large
she
circles
together as well as the sguares and triangles, and she made three
more stacks using the small shapes.
When asked how they were alike,
she pointed to one group and said that they were round.
When she was
asked if the two small round ones could be stacked with the two large
ones, she said that they could because they were round.
true of the squares and the triangles.
The same was
When she was asked if a large
red circle and a large red square,could be placed in a group,, she
replied, "No, because that is a square and that is a circle."
She
did not make any attempt to group by color.
The Texas Tech team and the other four groups place Shantell in
Stage 2 with Texas Tech Team at 75%, Group 1 at 95%, Group 2 at 75%,
Group 3 at 85% and Group 4 at 70%.
Most of those who disagreed
placed
there was
Shantell
graphics.
in Stage
1 although
no
indication
of
The few who placed her in Stage 3 may have focused on the
groupings by size and shape.
Segment 11 on Logical Classification by Brian
Brian was given the 12 geometric shapes and asked to put them in
50
stacks
so that they were alike in some way.
Brian engaged
in a
monologue and called each piece by its shape as he placed them in
groups.
He placed a large shape with the small shape of the same
color in a group until he had six stacks.
When asked if the blue
circle and the red circle could be put in a group, he replied, "No,
because they are different."
When asked to group in another manner,
he placed all of the blue shapes on one line and all of the red ones
in a line.
When he was asked to stack them if they were alike, he
stacked by color.
With some reluctance, he admitted that they were
alike because one stack was red and the other was blue.
Texas Tech team and the other four groups placed Brian in Stage
2.
The percentage for Texas Tech was 66.7%, Group 1 at 80%, Group 2
at 70%, Group 3 at 50% and Group 4 at 65%.
Even though he grouped by
size and called each piece by its geometric name, he refused to put
the
blue
circle
decisiveness
and
may
the
also
red
have
circle
been
a
in one group.
contributing
His
factor
lack of
in
the
assessment by some who put him into Stage 1.
Segment 12 on Linear Perspective by Leah
Leah was asked to pretend that the Tinker Toys were telephone
poles and to place the poles in a straight line between the two that
had been placed 30" apart along the edge of the table.
She started
placing them from right to left until all but one was in a straight
line.
Even when she was asked to place the remaining one in the
line, she did not.
She placed it behind the others.
No amount of
51
coaxing was effective in getting her to place the stray pole in the
straight line.
When asked to place them on the diagonal, she placed
one close to the pole on the right then to the left.
two
straight
lines
that
did
not connect
The result was
into one straight
line.
Although she straightened the lines using her hands, she never did
attain one straight line.
The Texas Tech team and the four Midland College groups placed
Leah in Stage 2.
The Texas Tech team agreed at the 75% level. Group
1 at 90%, Group 2 and Group 3 at 85%, and Group 4 at 80%.
Those who
placed Leah in Stage 1 may have been influenced by the placement of
one Tinker Toy behind the others that were actually in one straight
line.
Most of those who disagreed, however, placed her in Stage 3
since she did make two straight lines.
They failed to consider the
difference in the level of difficulty in forming one straight line
rather than two lines.
Segment 13 on Logical Classification by Jennifer
Jennifer was given the twelve geometric shapes and asked to place
them in stacks
graphic.
so that they were alike in some way.
She made a
Two cardboards were placed on the table, and she was asked
to place the material on the two cardboards so that they were in two
stacks that were alike in some way.
Again she just spread them out
in a graphic with no indication of similarity.
Texas Tech team and the four groups from Midland College placed
Jennifer in Stage 1.
The percentage for Texas Tech, Group 1, and
52
Group 2 was 100%, Group 3 at 95%, and Group 4 at 90%.
There was no
attempt whatsoever to group in any manner so agreement was high for
this task.
She was placed in Stage 2 at 5% by Group 3 and 10% by
Group 4.
Segment 14 on Ordering by Candi
Candi was
shown a string
different colors.
of beads
containing
eight
beads of
There were also 12 beads of the same colors which
were not on a string.
Candi was asked to name the colors of the
beads and asked to place the beads on her string so that they would
be exactly like the other string.
She placed the beads on her string
with little regard to color even though she said the name of the
color for each bead as she placed it on the string.
beads matched the model and the rest did not.
The first two
She placed all 12
beads on her string and when asked if her string was like the model
she said that they were alike.
All groups placed Candi in Stage 1 with Texas Tech and Group 1
placing the level at 100%, and Group 2 and Group 3 at 95% and Group 4
at 90%.
Since all twelve beads were placed on the string by Candi,
she was placed
in Stage 1 at a high agreement
level.
The small
percentage who disagreed must have misinterpreted the criteria.
Segment 15 on Ordering by Maya
Maya was shown the model containing the eight beads.
asked to make a string of beads exactly
She was
like the model from the
53
available 12 beads.
She very deliberately placed each bead on the
string in the correct order and left the four duplicate beads on the
table.
When her beads were removed from the string, she was asked to
place them in reverse order.
She did not seem to comprehend the word
reverse so she was asked to place them on the string backwards and
the first bead was pointed
out to her.
She then placed them in
reverse order.
All groups placed Maya in Stage 3.
Texas Tech at the 91% level.
Group 1 at 80%, Group 2 and Group 3 at 95% and Group 4 at 85%.
the word
reverse was explained
Since
to Maya, a small percentage of the
participants placed Maya in Stage 2.
There is no explanation for the
5% in Group 4 who assessed her in Stage 1.
Segment 16 on Ordering by Tonya
Tonya was
shown a string of beads on which eight
beads were strung.
varicolored
She was also shown a group of 12 beads containing
the same colored beads with a duplicate of four of the beads.
She
was asked
she
to string
her beads exactly
like the model.
When
strung her beads, she was asked if they were like the model.
said that they were not.
said that hers were longer.
She
When asked why they were not alike, she
She had strung all of the 12 beads.
She
was then asked if she could make hers like the model and she asked,
"The same color?"
like the model.
was
asked
She was asked again to string her beads exactly
She successfully completed the task this time and
to place
the beads
in reverse or backward
order.
She
54
asked, "You mean start with the black one?"
she started
stringing
the beads.
The answer was "yes" so
She successfully
strung them in
reverse.
The Texas Tech team placed Tonya in Stage 3 at 83.3%, Group 1 at
85%, Group 2 at 100%, Group 3 at 85%, and Group 4 at 95%.
Some of
the participants may have placed Tonya in the lower Stage 2 and 5% in
Stage 1 because she was not successful the first time, and she showed
a lack of confidence when asked to string the beads in reverse.
Segment 17 on Ordering by Todd
Todd was shown the model string of beads and the additional 12
beads and asked the colors of the beads.
He was then instructed to
string the beads so that they would be exactly like the model.
When
he successfully completed that task, he was asked to place them in
the reverse order or backward starting with the black bead.
When he
was finished, he was asked if his string of beads was like the model
and he answered that it was not.
He made no attempt to place them in
order correctly.
The Texas Tech team placed Todd in Stage 2 at 83.3%, Group 1 at
100%, Group 2 and 3 at 90%, and Group 4 at 95%.
Segment 18 on Class Inclusion bv Bill
Bill was asked if he knew what the brown and white beads were
made of, and he pointed to each bead and said that it was made of
wood.
He was
asked
to pretend
that
he was
going
to make
two
55
necklaces, one of all of the wooden beads and one of all of the brown
beads.
He was then asked which of the necklaces would be longer, the
one of wooden beads or the one of brown beads.
brown beads would
He said the one of
be longer because there were more brown beads.
Bill was then asked to place all of the wooden beads in a box and he
did.
He was then asked
to place all of the wooden beads on the
string to make a necklace and he did.
He was then asked if he made a
necklace of the brown beads and one of all the wooden beads, which
would be longer, the one of brown beads or the one of wooden beads.
He replied, "Brown beads."
The Texas Tech team placed Bill in Stage 2 at 66.6%, Group 1 at
100%, Group 2 at 95%, Group 3 at 90%, and Group 4 at 80%.
No matter
how the guestion was asked. Bill always replied that there were more
brown beads than there were wooden beads.
A small percentage placed
him in Stage 1 indicating an inability to include subclasses into a
class.
Some placed him in Stage 3 based on the placement of all the
beads in the box and on the string.
Segment 19 on Class Inclusion by Michael
Michael was also asked what the beads were made of to establish
that they were all made of wood.
The same questions were asked of
Michael as of Todd in the preceding segment.
His answers were the
same as Todd's as he always said there were more brown beads than
wooden
beads.
When he was asked why the brown necklace would be
longer than the wooden necklace, he replied, "There are only two of
56
these and there are seven of these."
He pointed to the two white
beads and to the seven brown beads.
The Texas Tech team pTaced Michael in Stage 2 at 58.7%, Group 1
at 100% Group 2 at 90%, Group 3 at 95%, and Group 4 at 85%.
Again
the disagreement may have related to the counting of the beads by
groups so 25% of the Texas Tech group placed him in Stage 3.
Group 4
placed him in Stage 3 at 5%.
Segment 20 on Class Inclusion by Jamie
The composition of the beads was explained to Jamie.
asked
She was
if there were more brown beads or more wooden beads.
answered,
"Wooden."
She was
then
asked
which
necklace would
She
be
longer, one made of the brown beads or one made of the wooden beads.
She answered, "Wooden."
She was asked to explain her answer and she
answered, "Because they are all wooden."
The Texas Tech team placed Jamie in Stage 3 at the 100% level.
Group 1, 2, and 4 at the 95% level, and Group 3 at 100%.
Groups 1
and 3 placed her in Stage 2 at the 5% level and Group 4 assessed her
as being in Stage 1 at the 5% level.
There is no logical explanation for placing Jamie in either Stage
1 or Stage 2.
Figures
percentage
were
developed
distribution
for
a
better
for the tasks.
understanding
Figures 1-20
of
the
indicate the
percentage assigned to the three stages of cognitive development for
each task and by each group:
the Texas Tech team and the four groups
57
from Midland College.
Analysis of Segments 6. 7. and 9
Because of the lack of agreement by the Midland College groups
with
the
Texas
Tech
team a more
in-depth
analysis
of the three
segments on which there was disagreement seemed appropriate.
Segment 6 depicted a child engaged in the task demonstrating a
knowledge of linear perspective.
Segment 6 on Linear Perspective by Greg
Greg was asked to pretend that the Tinker Toys were telephone
poles and to place them so that they were in one straight line.
were placed about 30" apart along the edge of a table.
placing his poles horizontally between the two end poles.
Two
He started
When told
to place them in an upright position, he placed them in a straight
line using the edge of the table as a reference point.
the Tinker Toys were placed
table.
on a diagonal
Again, two of
with the edge of the
Greg placed one close to the Tinker Toy to the right and then
one to the left continuing this process until he had placed all of
the Tinker Toys in a line.
The result was a straight line from each
end pole but not a continuous one.
When asked if he had made one
straight line, he replied that he had.
The criteria for Stage 2 for the linear perspective task states
that the child can form the straight line using the edge of the table
as a guideline, but he is unable to do so when the proposed position
58
Table 4.1
Greg
PERCENTAGE IN STAGES
GROUP
Texas Tech
0
66.7 33.3
6roup 1
0
50
50
Group 2
0
65
35
Group 3
10
45
45
70
30
Group 4
K*<'
a.
a
TX TECH
U7\
STAGE 1
GROUP 1
E3
Gf?OUP 2
STAGE 2
Figure 4.1
Greg
GROUP 3
UPZi STAGE J
GPOUP 4
59
of the poles is at an angle to the edge of the table.
With the exception of 10% of the participants in Group 3, all the
observers assessed
Greg as having
reached at least Stage 2.
The
Texas Tech team placed Greg in Stage 2 (66.7%), Group 1 had a split
between Stage 2 and 3 (50%), Group 2 in Stage 2 (65%), Group 3 also
had a split in Stage 1 (10%) and in Stage 2 and 3 (45%), Group 4
placed Greg in Stage 2 (70%).
Since Greg placed
the Tinker Toys in two straight lines on a
diagonal with the edge of the table, some observers viewed this as a
movement into Stage 3.
Piaget observed that the further apart the
Tinker Toys were placed, the more difficult it became for the child
to achieve one straight line (Piaget & Inhelder, 1967).
The behavior
of Greg depicted in this task clearly shows an ability to form two
short
straight
lines but not one long continuous
line. /.The low
percentage of agreement may indicate a difference in interpretation
of what constitutes one straight line.
The four groups from Midland College disagreed with the Texas
Tech
team
on
the
cognitive
Segment 7 and Segment 9.
stage of development
as depicted
in
Segment 7 showed Malita engaged in the
linear perspective task.
Segment 7 on Linear Perspective by Malita
Two Tinker Toys were placed 30" apart on the edge of the table,
and Malita was asked to pretend that they were telephone poles.
She
was to construct a telephone line using the remaining Tinker Toys.
60
Table 4.2
Malita
GROUP
PERCENTAGE IN STAGES
Texas Tech
58.3
41.7
Group 1
30
65
Group 2
25
75
Group 3
30
70
Group 4
10
90
I
30
ao^
70-
ao:^
a
UI
a
I
3D
7
2DH
7.
§
TX TECM
22
SUQE 1
^
GROUP 2
GROUP 1
E3
STAQC 2
Figure 4.2
Malita
Z'^
GROUP J
^
GROUP 4
V7P1 STAGE 3
61
She placed one to the left then one to the right and continued until
all of the Tinker Toys were in place.
She left a space between the
right hand group and those on the left, but she believed that they
were in one straight line.
When the Tinker Toys were placed on the
diagonal, she again placed one on the right and then one on the
left.
The result was a group on the left that was almost parallel
with the left edge of the table.
The right-hand group was at a
slight diagonal with the table, but again Malita left a space in the
placement of the Tinker Toys.
The majority of the Texas Tech team
placed Malita in Stage 1 (58.7%) since there was not one continuous
line in either part of the task.
College
groups were more
The majority of the four Midland
forgiving
and
saw the placement
as an
understanding of the concept of the straight line with the edge of
the table and placed Malita in Stage 2 (65%, 75%, 70% and 90%), but
5% of Group 1 placed her in Stage 3.
Again two straight lines were
formed but Malita did not indicate any concept of one straight line
placed on a diagonal.
There was also disagreement between the Texas Tech Team and the
four groups from Midland College on the assessment of the stage of
cognitive development for Chris in Segment 9.
Segment 9 on Logical Classification by Chris
The 12 geometric shapes were presented to Chris, and he was asked
to place them in groups so that they were alike in some way.
said, "I can't do it."
He
After some encouragement, he made a graphic
62
Table 4.3
Chris
GROUP
PERCENTAGE IN STAGES
Texas Tech
41.7
58.3
Group 1
95
5
0
Group 2
65
35
0
Group 3
75
25
0
Group 4
75
25
0
100
I
30-
ao TO « -
a
id
a
J
ao40
3020
10
Z^
I
I
V.
/
\
v^.
y.^
v,>N
31
//
•^N'
//TxN
A
TX TECH
1771 STAGE 1
^
GROUP 2
GROUP 1
E3
STAGE 2
Figure 4.3
Chris
^
GROUP 3
Ea
I
'j±
GROUP 4
STAGE 3
63
by
color.
replied.
When
asked
"Because
why
I wanted
he placed
to."
the objects
When
asked
in that
what
was
manner
alike,
he
pointed to the blue graphic and said, "That's alike, that's alike,
and that's alike."
He- repeated the process with the red graphic.
finally said that one of the graphics was blue.
When the shapes were
mixed up, and he was asked to group them in some other way:
made a graphic.
He
he again
When asked how they were alike, he did not answer.
When he was asked if he had made something, he replied with a nod.
When asked what he had made, he answered, "A space ship."
Piaget stated that children in Stage 1 do not arrange elements in
collections
but
unite
the
objects
into
graphic
collections.
He
further stated that children in Stage 2 create groups based on the
properties of size, color, and shape but it is not until Stage 3 that
a child can categorize in a variety of ways.
The Midland
College
groups placed Chris in Stage 1 based on his space ship graphic.
The
majority of the Texas Tech team considered not only the graphic but
the grouping by color.
The Texas Tech team placed Chris in Stage 2 at a marginal 58.3%
and 41.7% agreed with the Midland College groups who placed him in
Stage 1 (95%, 65%, 75% and 75%).
Frequency Distribution of Modes by Tasks
Are
cognitive
isolated
some tasks more conducive
development
than
others?
to determining
Each
of
the
stage
four
levels of
tasks
were
to determine if there was a higher level of agreement of
64
modes for a particular task.
The
first
task
demonstrated
the
concept
of
ordering.
The
criteria according to Piaget defines a child who pays no attention to
order or even to the number of beads placed on the string as being in
Stage 1.
The child in Stage 2 places the same objects on the string
and in the same order.
The* child moves into Stage 3 when reverse
ordering is accomplished.
The
criteria
is
so simple and
agreement was expected.
clear cut, the high
level
of
The range was 75% to 100% by the Texas Tech
team, and 80% to 100% for the four groups from Midland College.
The
second
task
related
to
linear
perspective
and
showed
an
agreement range from 50% to 100% for the Texas Tech team and from 45%
to 100% for the four Midland College groups.
The percentages were
low for this task partly because Segment 6 and Segment 7 on which
there was not even agreement as to the correct answer are both linear
perspective tasks.
The criteria
states
that a child moves
from an inability
to
construct a straight line using the edge of the table as a guide to
constructing a diagonal line by overcoming the influence of the edge
of the table (Table 4.4).
65
Table 4.4
Ordering
Segment
TT
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Segment 5
1-100%
1-100%
1-100%
1-100%
1-100%
Segment 14
l-lOO
1-100
1-95
1-95
1-90
Segment 15
3-91
3-80
3-95
3-95
3-85
Segment 16
3-75
3-85
3-100
3-85
3-95
Segment 17
2-83.3
2-100
2-90
2-90
2-95
A possible explanation of the low percentage of agreement may be a
difference
line.
in
the
interpretation
of
what
constituted
a
straight
Some may have used a literal interpretation while others were
more likely to assess according to the child's concept of a straight
line.
In Segment 1 the diagonal line was continuous, but slightly
curved.
Since
majority
of
Russell
the
verbalized
participants
about
placed
him
making
in
it
Stage
straight
the
3.
low
The
percentage of agreement for Segments 6 and 7 may be related to the
interpretation of one straight line as both Greg and Malita made two
lines (Table 4.5).
66
Table 4.5
Linear Perspective
Segment
TT
Segment 1
3-58.3%
Segment 6
2.66.7
Segment 7
Group 1 Group 2
3-70%
3-70%
Group 3
3-60%
Group 4
3-60%
2,3-50
2-65
2,3-45
2-70
1-50
2-65
2-75
2-70
2-90
Segment 8
l-lOO
1-100
1-100
1-100
1-95
Segment 12
2-75
2-90
2-85
2-85
2-80
The third task involved class inclusion and the range was 50%-100%
for Texas Tech and 60%-100% for the Midland College groups.
Unlike
the first two tasks, the low percentage assessments by Texas Tech
were on segments which received high percentage of agreement by the
Midland College groups.
On Segments 2 and 4 the agreement was high
by the Texas Tech team but a lower agreement by the Midland College
groups was noted.
Segment 4 had a high agreement by the Texas Tech
team at 91.7% and the range for Midland College was 60-75%.
The
Midland College groups may have misinterpreted the counting of the
beads as indicating a higher level of cognitive thought and placed
Lee Ann in Stage 2,
In Segment 18 when Bill was asked to place all
of the wooden beads in a box, he placed all of the beads in the box.
67
When
he was asked
answered
again which necklace would be longer, he still
that the brown bead necklace would be longer.
The Texas
Tech team placed Bill in Stage 2 at 66.7%, but 25% may have placed
him in Stage 3 based on the placing of all of the beads in the box.
The Midland College groups may have based their decision solely on
the answer concerning the length of the necklaces rather then being
influenced
by the inclusion of the two subclasses into a class by
placing all the beads in the box.
Those who disagreed in Segment 19
may also have been influenced by the placement of the beads in the
box (Table 4.6).
For the fourth task on logical classification, the agreement for
the Texas Tech team was from 58.3%-100%.
ranged from 50%-100%.
The Midland College groups
Piaget characterized children as in Stage 1
when graphics were made as a form of grouping.
In Stage 2 the child
may group by size, color, or shape but it is not until the child
moves into Stage 3 that he can group in a variety of ways.
There was
^ agreement with the Texas Tech team by all four Midland College groups
and the percentages were more uniform than in the class
task (Tabel 4.7).
inclusion
68
Table 4.6
Class Inclusion
Segment
TT
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Segment 2
1-100%
1-70%
1-75%
1-75%
1-80%
Segment 4
1-91.7
1-65
1-75
1-60
1-75
Segment 18
2.66.7
2-100
2-95
2-90
2-80
Segment 19
2-58.3
2-100
2-90
2-95
2-85
Segment 20
3-100
3-95
3-95
3-100
3-95
Table 4.7
Logical Classification
Segment
TT
Group 1 Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Segment 3
3-100%
3-70%
3-85%
3-95%
3-65%
Segment 9
2-58.3
1-95
1-65
1-75
1-75
Segment 10
2-75.7
2-95
2-75
2-75
2-70
Segment 11
2-66.7
2-80
2-70
2-50
2-65
Segment 13
1-100
1-100
1-100
1-95
1-90
69
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The problem addressed by this study was the lack of confidence of
students, parents, teachers, and caregivers in assessing the stages
of cognitive development of young children.
to
increase
supervisors'
skills
The need for materials
was apparent
because no existing
materials were specifically appropriate for building awareness and
perception of children's developmental skills.
The ability to assess
stage development coupled with an awareness that all children are not
in the same stage at the same chronological age should
facilitate
better individualized instruction.
The purpose
parents,
of this
teachers,
and
study was
to determine whether
caregivers
could
reliably
development of four- through seven-year-old children.
students,
assess
stage
The production
of the videotape allowed the viewers to assess cognitive skills and
compare their assessment with that of persons who are knowledgeable
in Piagetian theory.
From the review of the literature, four tasks were selected for
the
videotape
ordering,
(Rainbolt,
linear
Note
perspective,
2).
class
The
four
tasks
inclusion,
and
included:
logical
classification.
The materials and procedures were similar to those
used by Piaget.
A videotape was produced depicting forty children
who were four through seven years old engaged in the four Piagetian
70
tasks (Gaines, Note 1 ) . The resulting 160 segments were reduced to
twenty
randomly
performing
four
individually.
selected
tasks,
segments
with
The edited
five
that
showed
children
performing
videotape was viewed
students at Midland College.
twenty
children
each
task
by four groups of
Membership in a group was determined by
knowledge of psychology and Piaget.
Group
1
was
composed
of
students
who
had
completed
an
introductory course in psychology, as well as a child development
course.
In addition, they had completed a unit on Piagetian theory
and had administered Piagetian tasks to children.
Group 2 had the
same gualifications but had not administered tasks to any children.
Group 3 had completed the psychology course and were enrolled in the
child
development
course.
Group
4
had
just
enrolled
in
the
psychology course.
The assessment skills of these four groups were compared to those
of an expert team from Texas Tech composed of faculty and graduate
students who were well versed in Piagetian theory.
With the data generated, conclusions were drawn as to the impact
training in Piagetian theory had on the ability to assess correctly
the level of cognitive development in four- through seven-year-old
children.
Conclusions
In this exploratory
study, the Texas Tech
team and
the four
groups from Midland College obtained a high degree of agreement on
^^Lidiri^'
71
the level of cognitive development of the children in seventeen of
the twenty videotaped segments.
A more in-depth analysis of Segments
6, 7 and 9 was made because of the differences in agreement of the
children's responses.
Segment 6 was a linear perspective task in which Group 1 and
Group 3 from Midland College placed Greg in Stage 2 and Stage 3 at
50% of the responses.
Greg placed his Tinker Toys on the diagonal in
two lines rather than one.
Some interpreted that as an indicator of
Stage 2 and an egual number placed him in Stage 3 indicating an
understanding of the concept of the straight line.
the
Texas
Tech
team placed
Greg
The majority of
in Stage 2 (66.7%), but 33.3%
assessed him in Stage 3.
Segment 7 also dealt with linear perspective.
Malita used the
edge of the table as a reference point, but she also left a space
between the Tinker Toys on the left and those on the right.
The
Texas Tech team placed Malita in the lower Stage 1 (58.3%), and 41.7%
placed Malita in Stage 2.
All four groups from Midland College must
have believed Malita understood the concept and were not influenced
by the spacing and placed her in Stage 2 (65%, 75%, 70% and 90%).
Segment
9
dealt
with
logical
classification.
Chris
made
graphic by color and a graphic that he called a space ship.
a
The
Texas Tech team may have placed Chris in Stage 2 based on the use of
color
as
a
similarity
category,
but
the
Midland
College
groups
assessed Chris as in Stage 1 based solely on the graphic concept.
The Texas Tech team may have interpreted Chris's behavior as an
72
indication of a transition between Stage 1 and Stage 2 and placed him
in the more advanced Stage 2 (58.3%).
The Midland College groups
placed him in Stage 1 (95%, 65%, 75% and 75%) based on the creation
of graphics as did 41.7% of the Texas Tech team.
The conclusion was drawn that children's stage development for
ordering,
class
inclusion.
linear
perspective,
and
logical
classification can be assessed equivalently between knowledgeable and
less knowledgeable groups.
and
caregivers
skills.
may
now
Consequently, students, parents, teachers
express
confidence
in
their
assessment
Specific training in Piagetian theory is not necessary.
After becoming acquainted with Piaget's work,
teachers can never again see children in quite the
same way as they had before. Once teachers begin to
look at children from the Piagetian perspective they
can also appreciate his view with regard to the aims
of education. (Elkind, 1970, p. 177)
Implications For Further Research
At the time of the completion
of this
study, a considerable
amount of speculation existed concerning exit tests for high school
students, academic eligibility of students and achievement levels for
promotion.
The data generated by this study, could be of importance
to administrators in gearing instruction to the individual's needs.
There were
implications
discovered
during the process of this
study in regard to additional tasks that could be used to determine
cognitive levels.
Piaget discussed different tasks that would assess
73
the
same
cognitive
developmental
level
skill.
of
the
A
better
child
understanding
might
result
if
of
several
the
tasks
relating to the same concept were administered to each child.
Other
college
students
with
the
same
levels
of expertise
in
Piagetian theory could view the videotape to determine if the results
of this study could be replicated.
Recommendations
Based
on
the
recommendations
conclusions
of
this
are hereby submitted.
study,
the
following
First, results of the study
should be made available to education administrators, caregivers, and
parents
who
sequential
adequate
exhibit
cognitive
a desire
development
assessments
accomplished.
to
of
Minimally,
improve
in
children's
the
their
children
stage
videotape
as
understanding
confidence
development
could
be
of
that
can
be
observed
by
administrators, supervisors and principals to enhance their awareness
of how knowledge of developmental levels can increase the efficacy of
educational programming.
Second,
a
videotape
showing
stages
of
cognitive
development
should be made available to school systems for in-service training
sessions so that participants can determine their own capabilities at
assessment skills.
by caregivers
A videotape should also be available for viewing
such as nurses and child-care employees
as well
as
parent groups.
Additionally, a videotape
could
be used
in college classes in
74
education and child development resulting in a better understanding
of Piagetian theory.
Finally, the most significant and positive effect of the results
of
this
educators,
explorative
and
study
parents
developmental behavil)rs.
would
are
occur
enabled
if
to
administrators,
perceive
a
other
child's
75
REFERENCE NOTES
1.
Gaines, B. L. (1982). Piagetian tasks. An independent study
report completed at Texas Tech University.
2.
Rainbolt, K. S. (1976). Piagetian developmental task kit.
independent study report completed at Texas Tech University.
V-'
An
76
REFERENCES
Ambron, S. R. (1984). Child development.
and Winston,
New York:
Holt, Rinehart,
Brainerd, C. J. (1978). Piaget's theory of intelligence.
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Englewood
Brookover, W.; Beamer, L.; Efthim, H.; Hathaway, D.; Lezotte, L.;
Miller, S.; Pasalacqua, J.; & Tornatzky, L. (1982). Creating
effective schools: An inservice program for enhancing school
learning climate and achievement. Holmes Beach, Fla.: Learning
Publications, Inc.
Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1977). Changes in school
characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Urban
Development.
Cowan, P. A. (1978). Piaget:
Rinehart and Winston.
With feeling.
New York:
Holt,
Crain, W. C. (1980). Theories of development concepts and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Edmonds, R., & Fredericksen, N. (1978). Search for effective schools:
The identification and analysis of city schools that are
instructionally effective for poor children. Cambridge: Harvard
University, Center for Urban Studies.
Elkind, David. (1970). Children and adolescents.
University Press.
New York:
Oxford
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget.
Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand.
Furth, H. G. (1970). Piaget for teachers.
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, New
Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). Piaget's theory of intellectual
development: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Gravetter, F. J. & Wallnau, L. B. (1985). Statistics for the
behavorial sciences. St Paul: West.
Ladas, H. S. (1980, May). Handbook of irreducible tracts for
teaching and learning. Phi Delta Kappan. pp. 606-607.
77
National Commission on Excellence on Education. (1983). A nation at
risk. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.
Nie, N. H.; Hull, C. H..; Jenkins, J. G.; Steinbrenner, K.; & Bent,
B. H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed)
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Piaget. J. (1959). The psychology of intelligence.
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Piaget. J.
Norton.
(1965). The child's concept of number.
London:
New York:
Piaget. J. (1969). Judgement and reasoning in the child.
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
W. W.
London:
Inhelder. B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking
from childhood to adolescence. Basic Books, (tr. Anne Parsons and
Stanley Milgram)
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the
child. New York: W. W. Norton.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J.
New York: W. W. Norton.
(1967). The child's concept of space.
Wellisch, J. B. (1978). School management and organization in
successful schools. Sociology of Education. 51. 211-226.
APPENDICES
A.
LETTER
B.
VIDEOTAPING
C.
DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET-CHILD
D.
MODEL RELEASE FORM
E.
TASK ADMINISTRATOR RELEASE FORM
F.
MEMORANDUM
G.
VIDEOTAPE VIEWING SCHEDULE
H.
DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET-ADULT
I.
CODING PROCEDURE - ADULTS
J.
TASKS
K.
EVALUATION
L.
PROCEDURE
M.
TABLES
N.
FIGURES
0.
PRODUCTION STAFF
78
79
APPENDIX A:
LETTER
808 Harvard
Midland, Texas
79701
Parent or responsible party,
I am a doctoral student at Texas Tech University.
Part of the
research for my dissertation will entail the production of a videotape
depicting children engaged in Piagetian tasks.
Jean Piaget believed
that a child's level of comprehension could be measured by the use of
such tasks.
I would like permission to videotape your child engaged in
each of four Piagetian tasks.
The tasks will measure the level of
comprehension in the following tasks:
(1)
Spatial Ordering
(2)
Linear Perspective
(3)
Addition of classes
(4)
Logical classification
If you choose to participate in the project, will you please fill
out the forms included in this packet.
At the time of the videotaping,
your child will receive a code and the identity of your child will be
known only to the researcher although the first name of the child will
be used on the videotape to aid in the identification of the segment.
Betty Gaines
APPENDIX B:
VIDEOTAPING
Name
Address
Telephone Number
Time
Permission granted by.
Tear off here
Time
Place
Midland College
Learning Resource Center
Television Studio
81
APPENDIX C:
DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET-CHILD
Code
Please fill in the blanks or circle the appropriate response as
indicated by each question that follows.
Name
Birthdate
.Age.
Address
Street
City
Telephone
(
)
AC
My race or ethnic background is:
1. White/Caucasian
2. Black/Negro
3. Chicano/Mexican
I am:
4.
5.
6.
American Indian
Oriental
Other (specify)
sisters
I am:
1.
the only child
2.
the oldest child
3.
4.
an in-between child
the youngest child
4.
5.
$25,000 to $50,000
above $50,000
5.
6.
7.
100,000 to 250,000
250,000 to 500,000
over 500,000
My family's financial status is:
1.
2.
3.
Most of
1.
2.
3.
4.
below $9,000
$9,000 to $15,000
$15,000 to $25,000
my life, I have been a resident of:
a farm community
less than 25,000 population
25,000 to 50.000
50,000 to 100,000
I have moved (from house to house, town to town)
1.
2.
3.
never
1-2 times
3-5 times
Educational background:
1.
Mother
4.
5.
6.
6-10 times
11-15 times
more than 15 times
Last grade in school completed
2.
Father
Zip
2. male
1. female
I have
brothers
I have
State
82
APPENDIX D:
MODEL RELEASE FORM
grant permission to
Parent or responsible party
_to videotape
Researcher
Participant
engaged in Piagetian tasks.
educational situations.
I understand that the tape will be used in
Any commercial use of the tape will be
compensated by a one time payment of $5.00 for each segment in which
the participant appears.
Signed by
Researcher
83
APPENDIX E:
TASK ADMINISTRATOR RELEASE FORM
I,
agree to serve as
task administrator for the videotaping of children engaged in Piagetian
tasks.
I understand that the tape will be used in educational
situations.
Any commercial use of the tape will be compensated by a
one time payment of $5.00 for each segment in which the administrator
appears.
Signed by
Researcher
84
APPENDIX F:
TO:
MEMORANDUM
St. Luke's Methodist Church
Midland, Texas
FROM:
Betty Land Gaines
DATE:
RE:
Use of facilities
I am a doctoral student at Texas Tech Univeristy and am writing my
dissertation.
I would like permission to use the facilities (one room)
at St. Luke's Methodist Church on
at
. I want to develop a videotape showing
four- through seven-year-olds engaged in four Piagetian tasks.
Jean
Piaget believed that a child's level of comprehension could be measured
by the use of such tasks.
The tasks will measure the level of
comprehension in the following tasks:
(1)
Spatial Ordering
(2)
Linear Perspective
(3)
Addition of classes
(4)
Logical Classification
I would like to videotape one child from each of the four age
groups.
The children will be from the St. Luke's Child Care Center.
Permission to videotape will be obtained from the proper person.
is a possibility that the videotapes will be shown in educational
settings in the future.
The name of the child care center can be
omitted or credit given at the discretion of the church.
I may be
contacted at Midland College, 3600 N. Garfield or by telephone
684-7851, Ex. 208.
There
85
APPENDIX G:
VIDEOTAPE VIEWING SCHEDULE
Name
Code.
Address
City
Telephone
State
(
)
AC
Number
Date.
Time
Place
Behavioral Science Laboratory
Room 103. Allison Fine Arts
Midland College. Midland. Texas
Tear here
Videotape Viewing Schedule
Date.
Time
Place
Behavioral Science Laboratory
Room 103. Allison Fine Arts
Midland College. Midland. Texas
Zip
86
APPENDIX H:
DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET-ADULT
Code
Classification
Please fill in the blanks or circle the appropriate response as
indicated by each question that follows.
Jelephone.
Name
Address
Sex:
State
Street
City
Female (1)
Male (2)
My race
1.
2.
3.
or ethnic background is
White/Caucasian
Black/Negro
Chicano/Mexican
I have
brothers
4.
5.
6.
Zip
American Indian
Oriental
Other (specify)
I have
sisters
I am:
1.
2.
the only child
the oldest child
3.
4.
an in-between child
the youngest child
4.
5.
$25,000 to $50,000
above $50,000
My yearly income is:
1.
2.
3.
below $9,000
$9,000 to $15,000
$15,000 to $25,000
Most of my life, I have been a resident of:
1.
2
3.
4.
a farm community
less than 25,000 population
25,000 to 50,000
50,000 to 100,000
5.
6.
7.
100.000 to 250.000
250,000 to 500,000
over 500,000
I have moved (from house to house, town to town)
1.
2.
3.
never
1-2 times
3-5 times
My major is
4.
5.
6.
6-10 times
11-15 times
more than 15 times
—
I authorize the registrar's office of Midland College to release the
following information for the benefit of this study.
87
APPENDIX I:
CODING PROCEDURE - ADULTS
Validation group
Child Growth and Development
class who have worked
with children
Child Growth and Development
class who have not
worked with children
Child Growth and Development
class—untrained
Introduction to Psychology
TT - 1
Continue numbering each
individual member of the group
•MC - A-1
Continue numbering each
individual member of the group
MC - B-1
Continue numbering each
individual member of the group
MC - C-1
Continue numbering each
individual member of each group
MC - D-1
Continue numbering each
individual member of the group
88
APPENDIX J:
Task I:
TASKS
Ordering - Beads
Stage 1
The child is unable to place the same objects on the string as
indicated by the model.
He pays no attention to order and may place
more or less beads on his string than are on the model.
Stage 2
The child is able to place the same objects on the string in the
same order as the model.
He is not capable of stringing the beads in
the reverse of the model even when the word "reverse" is explained.
Stage 3
The child is able to duplicate the model and is able to string
the beads in reverse order.
Source
Inhelder & Piaget.
(1967).
89
Task 2:
Linear Perspective - Tinker Toys
Stage 1
The child is incapable of forming a straight line even when the
two poles are placed so that the child could use the edge of the table
as a guide.
Stage 2
The child can form the straight line using the edge of the table
as a guideline.
He is unable to do so when the proposed position of
the poles would be at an angle to the edge of the table.
Stage 3
The straight line can be constructed no matter where the poles lie
on the table.
This is done by the child spontaneously 'aiming' or
sighting along the line of poles.
accordingly.
Source
Inhelder & Piaget.
(1967).
He may then straighten the poles
90
Task 3:
Addition of Classes - Brown and White Beads
Stage 1
The child is not capable of understanding that the B class will
always contain more elements than the A class.
He cannot think
simultaneously of the whole B and the parts A and A' and that class A
results from the subtraction of A' from B.
Class B contains all the
wooden beads, class A contains the brown beads and class A' contains
the white beads.
The child will continually maintain that there are
more brown beads than wooden beads.
Stage 2
The child gradually comes to understand that the B classes contain
more elements than the A and A' classes.
discovery.
He may gradually make the
He may understand that there are more wooden beads than
brown beads but when asked which necklace would be longer, he still
replies that the brown one would be longer since there are more brown
beads than wooden beads.
Stage 3
The child can grasp immediately that class B is larger than class
A.
He now approaches the problem from the point of view of additive
composition.
He understands that the wooden necklace would be longer
since all the beads are wooden.
Source
Piaget.
(1965).
91
Task 4:
Logical Classification - Shapes and Colors
Stage 1
Children do not arrange elements in collections and subcollections
on the basis of similarity alone.
They unite the objects in "graphic
collections".
Stage 2
The child is able to consider which objects are similar based on
the properties of size, color, or shape.
He does not group in a
variety of ways.
Stage 3
The child's thinking is now flexible so that he can make distinct
classifications by color, size, and shape.
of ways.
He will group in a variety
He can group using hierarchical classification.
When asked
to group the objects into a specific number of groups, he is successful
Source
Inhelder & Piaget.
(1964).
92
APPENDIX K:
Segment
Task 1
Ordering
Beads
Task 2
Linear
Perspective
Tinker Toys
1.
Russell
2.
Drew
3.
Susie
4.
Lee Ann
5.
Suzanne
6.
Greg
X
7.
Malita
X
8.
Amy
X
9.
Chris
EVALUATION
Task 3
Task 4
Addition
of Classes
Brown and
White
Logical
Classification
Shapes, Colors
Sizes
Wooden
Beads
X
X
X
X
X
X
10. Shantell
X
11. Brian
X
12. Lea
13. Jennifer
X
X
14. Candi
X
15. Maya
X
16. Tonya
X
17. Todd
X
18. Bill
X
19. Michael
X
20. Jamie
X
Indicate the stage level for each child using the criteria of Jean
Piaget by placing a ( 1 ) , (2), or (3) opposite the appropriate "X".
93
APPENDIX L:
PROCEDURE
1.
Hand out the demographic sheet. (A) or (B)
2.
Assign a code to each participant. (C)
3.
Hand out the material to be used for determining the stage of
development for each segment on the videotape.
4.
Allow 30 minutes to study the material.
5.
Hand out the evaluation sheet.
6.
Give the following instructions.
(D)
(E)
Allow questions until all
participants feel sure of the next procedure.
You will view a videotape consisting of twenty segments.
Each
segment will depict a child engaged in one of four Piagetian tasks.
On the left side of the evaluation sheet Is a number and the name of
the child which will be used to Identify each segment.
There are
four columns headed by the task number as well as the name of the
task.
There -is an "X" in the column indicating which task the child
1s performing.
You are to evaluate which stage of development the
child is in and place an "0", "1", "2", or "3" by the appropriate
"X".
The stage will be determined
previously studied material.
the stage to be determined.
by the criteria listed on the
Be sure to allow sufficient time for
When the videotape is over, collect the
evaluation sheets and check each one to be sure that all information
is
given
on
dismiss them.
the
demographic
sheet,
thank
the
participants, and
94
APPENDIX M:
TABLES
95
Table M 1.1
Frequency Distribution Of Assessment Levels
By Texas Tech Team
Segment
Percentage at Stage 1
41.7
58.3
1.
Linear Perspective
2.
Class Inclusion
3.
Classification
4.
Class Inclusion
5.
Ordering
6.
Linear Perspective
7.
Linear Perspective
8.
Linear Perspective
9.
Classification
10.
Classification
25.0
75.0
11.
Classification
8.3
66.7
25.0
12.
Linear Perspective
16.7
75.0
8.3
13.
Classification
100
0
0
14.
Ordering
100
0
0
15.
Ordering
0
8.3
91.7
16.
Ordering
0
16.7
83.3
17.
Ordering
16.7
83.3
0
18.
Class Inclusion
8.3
66.7
25.0
19.
Class Inclusion
16.7
58.3
25.0
20.
Class Inclusion
0
100
0
8.3
91.7
100
58.3
0
0
66.7
33.3
41.7
0
0
100
41.7
100
58.3
100
96
Table M 1.2
Frequency Distribution Of Assessment Levels
By Group 1
Segment
Percentage at Stage 1
0
30
70
70
30
0
Classification
0
30
70
4.
Class Inclusion
65
35
0
5.
Ordering
100
0
0
6.
Linear Perspective
0
50
50
7.
Linear Perspective
30
65
5
8.
Linear Perspective
100
0
0
9.
Classification
95
5
0
10.
Classification
0
95
5
11.
Classification
5
80
15
12.
Linear Perspective
5
90
5
13.
Classification
100
0
0
14.
Ordering
100
0
0
15.
Ordering
0
20
80
16.
Ordering
5
10
85
17.
Ordering
0
100
0
18.
Class Inclusion
0
100
0
19.
Class Inclusion
0
100
0
20.
Class Inclusion
0
1.
Linear Perspective
2.
Class Inclusion
3.
5
95
97
Table M 1.3
Frequency Distribution Of Assessment Levels
By Group 2
Segment
Percentage at Stage 1
0
30
70
75
20
5
0
15
85
75
25
0
100
0
0
Linear Perspective
0
65
35
7.
Linear Perspective
25
75
0
8.
Linear Perspective
100
0
0
9.
Classification
65
35
0
10.
Classification
15
75
10
11.
Classification
10
70
20
12.
Linear Perspective
5
85
10
13.
Classification
100
0
0
14.
Ordering
95
0
5
15.
Ordering
0
5
95
16.
Ordering
0
0
100
17.
Ordering
5
90
5
18.
Class Inclusion
5
95
0
19.
Class Inclusion
10
90
0
20.
Class Inclusion
0
5
95
1.
Linear Perspective
2.
Class Inclusion
3.
Classification
4.
Class Inclusion
5.
Ordering
6.
98
Table M 1.4
Frequency Distribution Of Assessment Levels
By Group 3
Segment
1.
Linear Perspective
2.
Class Inclusion
3.
Classification
4.
Class Inclusion
5.
Ordering
6.
Percentage at Stage 1
5
35
60
75
25
0
0
5
95
60
40
0
100
0
0
Linear Perspective
10
45
45
7.
Linear Perspective
30
70
0
8.
Linear Perspective
100
0
0
9.
Classification
75
25
0
10.
Classification
15
85
10
11.
Classification
30
50
20
12.
Linear Perspective
10
85
5
13.
Classification
95
5
0
14.
Ordering
95
5
0
15.
Ordering
0
5
95
16.
Ordering
0
15
85
17.
Ordering
10
90
0
18.
Class Inclusion
10
90
0
19.
Class Inclusion
5
95
0
20.
Class Inclusion
0
0
100
99
Table M 1.5
Frequency Distribution Of Assessment Levels
By Group 4
Segment
1.
Linear Perspective
2.
Class Inclusion
3.
Classification
4.
Class Inclusion
5.
Ordering
6.
Percentage at Stage 1
5
35
60
80
15
5
0
35
65
75
25
0
100
0
0
Linear Perspective
0
70
30
7.
Linear Perspective
10
90
0
8.
Linear Perspective
95
0
5
9.
Classification
75
25
0
10.
Classification
15
70
15
11.
Classification
15
65
20
12.
Linear Perspective
5
80
15
13.
Classification
90
10
0
14.
Ordering
90
0
10
15.
Ordering
5
10
85
16.
Ordering
0
5
95
17.
Ordering
0
95
5
18.
Class Inclusion
15
80
5
19.
Class Inclusion
10
85
5
20.
Class Inclusion
5
0
95
100
Table M 2.1
Frequency Distribution Of "Correct" Assessment
By The Five Groups
Segment
TT
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
1.
Linear Perspective
3-58.3%
3-70%
3-70%
3-60% 3-60%
2.
Class Inclusion
1-100
1-70
1-75
1-75
1-80
3.
Classification
3-100
3-70
3-85
3-95
3-65
4.
Class Inclusion
1-91.7
1-65
1-75
1-60
1-75
5.
Ordering
1-100
1-100
1-100
1-100
1-100
6.
Linear Perspective
2-66.7
2.3-50
2-65
2,3-45
2-70
7.
Linear Perspective
1-58.7
2-65
2-75
2-70
2-90
8.
Linear Perspective 1-100
1-100
1-100
1-100
1-95
9.
Classification
2-58.3
1-95
1-65
1-75
1-75
10.
Classification
2-75
2-95
2-75
2-75
2-70
11.
Classification
2-66.7
2-80
2-70
2-50
2-65
12.
Linear Perspective
2-75
2-90
2-85
13.
Classification
1-100
1-100
1-100
1-95
1-90
14.
Ordering
1-100
1-100
1-95
1-95
1-90
15.
Ordering
3-91
3-80
3-95
3-95
3-85
16.
Ordering
3-83.3
3-85
3-100
3-85
3-95
17.
Ordering
2-83.3
2-100
2-90
2-90
2-95
18.
Class Inclusion
2-66.7
2-100
2-95
2-90
2-80
19.
Class Inclusion
2-58.7
2-100
2-90
2-95
2-85
20.
Class Inclusion
3-100
3-95
3-95
3-100
3-95
2-85
2-80
101
APPENDIX N:
FIGURES
102
UJ
i_ i_
(f)
' *'
w
•
t
•
I
'
I
'
I
•
1^ i_ 1^ 1^ 1 1 ^
I
I
'
i_ 1^ i_ 1^ 1^ 1 . 1 ^
I
•
I
•
I
•
t
1^ I
I .1
a
-:—•:—*—t
en
IE
UJ
•1^ w^ <_ f^
P
'•-
>
• "l
•
I—•
t
'
I
Lt:
t
'
I
'
t
'
' J * ^ - ' - ' - ' - T>
' • -
I
**. "*- **• " * •
'
I
'
I
'I'll
n
' • - / • - " • .
•
I
'
.t
•
-^
'i
'in
a
I
It
CI
I
ii.i^ ^ » i
I 1^ ' . ' ' J ' ' , " ' l ^ '» ' , ''- '-! K \ r. '. '- '- '"'IT*- **- '-"'1 *"•- '- '- '• *'- ^•' '• '• '~ '"-^T*."*'! ' . 'J ^« ' - ' ' . '- V - , ' - , ' - ' . ' - i
u
CL
LL
'
- <
UJ
CL
J - 13
UJ
(/;:•
'
*•« *'» * ^
I
I
1 . 1 . 1 , 1 . 1 . 1 . •_ 1 . 1 . 1 . ' - . ' . . ' . . ' .• . I' • .I ' • I. ' •I . ' I- . -I . -I . - i_
. - .' - •. -' . ' - .. -' . . -' .. - . - ' ., ' .- .
•.
- . •-
I
•
,4- 13
G
'
I I I I
•-.-•.-..-•.-•.-•.-•.••.-•.-•.-•.-•.-•.••.•.•
CL
13
G
QL
a
I
I .
_ I
_ .
. ' . ' . ' . ' . • . ' . ' . ' . ' , ' . ' . ' • ' '
•.•*•.•'•.*"•.'"•."*•.""•.'•-.'•-.••-.••-.'"•/%%"•.."••."••."••."••."••.•••."••."••.*••.•"•.'"••".'•.."••/••.'•'•••?••.'s^-.'••.'••.'••.'••.'••. '•• '••-'"••"
'-^•-:vS:->•:s>^•••.;•\••^;••.;-^^:v:-•.•.-•-•.;-.:-.:-•.: v::•^/
> '.' '.' ' J
*i'
UJ
'
-*''
••''
i''
•'"
•''
.-
.-
• ' ' — i : ; ^ — • ' '
•'
.•
'*'
•'
•'
'"
r
^—^—y
i '
'"
'"
1
r" ""i
UJ
CO
.•
•-—y
r-
a
•n
'4
H
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 1
Segment 1
H
en
103
PERiZENT
u
l_l
'.j •.. •.. -L-
.r
pJ—.;;
,~_l-
a
S
8
!_l
s
! I
I 1
p_
H
•
'
•
'
•
•
•
"l
Zi
••
'.J..'
I
i7«
I'
D
I
m
H
ro
I
J—-f—E»—9—Et—^
••'
--•
.-••
c
13
I
I
I
!7I
J
D
..'
J
c:
._••.••
1^
1^
1^
-ri—..'
D
f^
*
1^
.1
1^
i_
•
.1—i^
I •"•^—.^.f-
•
00
c
C>4
/• ^ * — ^ • ^ ^ . ^ j — ^ — " ^
•i
D
c
J
1
-,.
I
.
I
I
.
I
^™^"^-
'
m
+-r^
* .
•
Figure N 2
Segment 2
104
'.
'.
'.
'.
'.
'.
'.
» " v ' • • "*. * " . ' • - X
• * — * — *
'
•-
^
'.
'.
'•
'.
'.
V
'•
*.
*-. *-. * • • ' - . •". * - . ' - . ' -
•
•
•
'
•
T
' I
'
"•
••
\
* J
*
'
S
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
•
I
'
I
CL
G
IE
Cl
*
•^' 1 'f
'-.
•-,
••, • . .
"'^-"^
• ' * -^ . . ^
" ^
• « , -w, - . ,
* '
* '
"•
*'
-.,
"•
•^_ - . ^
'•
*•
I" p
•-_ ••_
*•
I
1
1
I
I
f
I
» 1 1^ ^ '
1 *
f
I
f
1 •*'
.-r
^•
•-
•
'•
• I I
t
'
I
G
IE
Cl
-• •".'-. X
'-.
• -<
*•• •
UJ
i'
I
'
I
'
»
•
I
CL
•I- 13
G
IE
Cl
•t
I f f2 ^^ f, I. r; W2 **, ' - ''- '- ''- '- V T'"'.™^ '.
"*• **. "^
I
•
I
I
I
I
• <
UJ
J
I
I
I
1
I
I.
1. I.
I. ' .
•. 1. '. '.
'.
'.
'.
'.
'.
' . I . -
'.
LJ
CO
I I
i"i
'2
'-^
1^:
I
I I
i
w
lN3Cia3d
Figure N 3
Segment 3
.-<
t
•
*
t
1 ^
'
I
I
•• I
'
I
•
I
I
-•I- G
G
IE
Cl
j
Ci
en
105
CL
UJ
I
u
I.
I
I.
•• ••. •.
•
I
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • M B ^ .
t.
I
•
I
i- G
G
IE
Cl
•
a
I.
I
.1
I
.••
^'
00
t:
v
•••-
^.
•
I
I
I'
I
y
r
.••
i'
i'
i"
»
(
r
r
I- G
G
IE
CI
I
J
CL
I
I
I
I
I
G
G
IE
I
CI
•
•
CO
i
I
I
I
I
QL
-i—I—t—1—I-—I
I
^
I
I- G
G
IE
Cl
-
UJ
UJ
CO
^
I**!
'x!
en
'-^
in
I ~i
i_i
r--
'I
n
«i
'•
'' f
'
Iri
"'I '• ^' r
n
I I
lN3Cia3d
Figure N 4
Segment 4
Zd
'' •
H
3
,1
1
106
D.
I- G
•
»
*
•
'
"
'
'
'-
1 .
r
y
• I I • • I, • •
^
I
•• , • !
ii
,,
•I"
• * • • • >
•
"111 I I
G
IE
CI
l»
t . » . » ^ » ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
a
M
P
(J]
(f)
I- G
^'"
i:"0
"P
'"• P •
' »
'
' f•
•'"!
G
IE
t '
CI
* • • • • ifci • • • ! 11 •
*i
^ ^ 1 .
Q:
UJ
CL
|i
1 1 ^ • • •• ^
• Y
iX
•••
^
1
»
I
»
^
• w
a
Cl
•Ji_
IA I
ii
I
ifc.
•
i' y
CL
b:
I- G
•-.
'*.
UJ
w
I- G
G
J
"'.
*•,
'*".
**•
*•
'*!
*.
'*•
"•.
*'.
**.
*"•
'"•
'".
'~.
'•.
"•
"-
*-^
- *i
X
*'•
•
*••
'•
I *•
"••
'"-
"•
**-
'••
"'•
'*•
"••
'"•
"'
"•
"•
"'•
'•,
*••
•".
'*••
"' — ^
"•,
'"•
^*
'
"•.
**'m
\
\
"••
*•
**'»
; , _ _ _ _ i _ _ _ _ ^ _ ^
"*"•
"'.
•
»
'"*.
**•
1,
G
IE
CI
*
a
r
UJ
Cl
CO
-».
•.
i_
'.
1.
i_
I.
I.
1.
I,
'..
1.
' '^
'.
'.,
'-.
'-,
\7
*i
I I
I I
'«
.3
—r
** I '•
r--
n
in
I I
i I
1^
i-4
I N 3D'dad
Figure N 5
Segment 5
107
i ' ^:i
UJ
ai
o
u
T~TT~T~T"r""T''T'T~';"
•
.1
.1
J
J
m'
m'
'
'
'
•
e
j
'• J
'• j
"• I
•
I
I
'ff T ' ^ * r ' T ~ t ' f
'•
I
• "l "• "l "' "l '• j
"•
H
G
G
IE
d
j
X...-
f
i'
[=
r
'
'I
j
t •^^tT'^^'^^^'l^^—^™^
y
'
I
' J
I
• .1 • / ' . ' ' . ' ' . ' ' . ' '
^'
^
T ' yT r
a
T T"^ 'T t " T
CL
' . * ' . * * . ' ' . ' ' . ' ' . '
UJ
•
LL
> I
I
t
G
G
IE
Cl
t
COi
Q:
UJ
LL
-r
t'
• •! — ^
-' ' . ' ' J ' ,' ' J ' .' ' .' ' J ' -> ' , ' ' -' ' ^'
——p-
1
*-
•
•
' -'
CL
G
G
IE
*—
a
Cl
- < •
LJJ
f '• '. '. "T ',"T, ^ ^ ' V L
1, V I
V ' - VI"'.!"'."'." r ' - ' - ' - ' T ' ,
',"'~VT.. 'r''-7'r''-, 'V*i'.
" • ' " • ' ' ' • ' " • • • • • " • " • ' " • ' " • ' " • ' " • ' ' " • ' ' • ' ~ - *• ' • • ' • ' * ' *• " ' " • ' • " « * •
"• * ' " • " ' "• ' •
^ ^ J^ ^ J ^ ,^ ^ ^ ^ J ' J * J ' •'.-'
'.-'
' • *« " • ' i " '
rs
G
G
IE
'ij_:«
Cl
^
I
1^ I
1^ 1^ 1^ 1^
^[•••^"•.."•..'••.^.."••.'••.^••. •••/"•._"••. ••."••.7'vr"'r''-r'-r''-r'''r'"'r''-.'••.'•-!
UJ
7—?—-'
Y
.-'
..••
.-••
..'
a
I, I, I. 1^ 1^ I. I. I. I. ' . I. I. I. I . I. '.^
V
r
Cl
.--• . - '
I
•
I
p:
LJ
I
I
r-.
Izl
a
y
H
H
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 6
Segment 6
11
I I
108
<
<
..'
.••*"
•
,.'
..'
..'
. ' ' '
.••''
.••*'
•'—•"
•"
.-•
. ' ' '
«'
CL
..'
G
G
IE
.••*'
<' r'
r
Cl
u
HI
a
in
r
I
I
ill
CL
'
•
'
' I
>
I
I
I
a:
u
I
I •
I'
I
hi
" ^ " ' - " ^ " ^ ^
I
I
I
I
•
CL
G
G
I
I
I
I
•
[E
Cl
IM
*
i:-4
• I • '
II •
•• r
' f
I
'
»
f
LL
A
•
*
1
1—H
1.
CL
I
\- G
G
I
IE
Lf
a
Cl
•
<
~
.'
.-••
N • .1
CL
I
G
G
IE
CI
V
I
I
I
I
I
N
I
I
•
r
Ui
, ,.
ill
CO
*
y
I t
i»—I.
I,—i'.
r
-—r
a
8
i'—17—^_—"r—"r;—'I,
I I
1^
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 7
Segment 7
'I,
C,—\
'-.
I I
..-4
":.n
109
Q.
'F
UJ
I -
If. • I >y-
I
'••.
• \
'
-^
•
*
^ • -
V- 13
G
CE
CJ
T
\
•
•
a
UJ
CL
LL
CO
Crl
U
"'.
V
"^J™ IJ'
''.
^
*,
'
»
'
^
•
-
^
1^
'
-
I,
I,
',
I,
I,
I
I,
I
a_
i:-4
Ql
- <
I- G
G
IE
Cl
1^1. . . l y
I
•
I
I
^tm
•!
. , -
CL
•:-4
I- G
G
IE
Cl
a
•
.-r
P
UJ
CL
« • ' I
T-—C-
f
I
. ,
•••,•
G
u
IE
• pi
a
UJ
^. s ••
I
r
I.
I.
'
'•'
*
•_
i_
I.
I.
• P
UJ
'-•
•'
I
W
'3
'r-
I
ill
'
"i
• I'
y
ill
*i|
i""i
I I
1^
•."=4
lN3Da3d
Figure N 8
Segment 8
I i
11
110
in
z:
r *i
•-..
1,^^
I
r
••., \ .
•-.
'»
X
'.
».'
«.
I
CL
G
G
IE
J
«.—H—•;—•ir—"r—t
Cl
.1
I
I
» ^ . ^ i ^ ^
F
a
- <
I J
n
D.
G
G
IE
'•.. '•.. '-. ^:
Cl
i' i
0' ..'
CO
<
I
i.
I
T'
CL
.1
*
'^
•
•
•
•
•
•
'
•
I
•
I
>
•
I
I
I
G
G
IE
a
Cl
on
-
<
r "-I
I
CL
G
G
IE
.1
Cl
•^
•:^j
•
.'
.•
rCl
J
.
UJ
-
^
. - • • "
. - ' •
•+—'..
- ^
. . - • •
t—»::.
*:—ir-
p
'•"J"-'
UJ
i^i
u
«
I I
I I
'3
I"-.
n
I I
«T5
n
i I
ifl
•:/
lN3Cia3d
Figure N 9
Segment 9
r4
n
y
^
i/\
!S^^
Ill
•• •• •• •• ". *. ••
>x:-"S:s::\"::
«:.__;•
l^-'
..-•
,-•
.-•
.•
.••
,-•
.'
.•••
,-•
/•
.-•
''t *' 't''''j'"''j
.-•
.••
y
.••
CL
G
G
IE
Cl
/ •
O
•
I
I
I
\Z
a
1*1
CO
CO
I
••
y
. , ' X
.X- .-•
..-
/ . ' •/ •- ' V. '' * . f". ^ ' .••' •-•/ • •••
/••
-•••
.-'
.-'
I , • •
i^ii
••ifii
CL
G
G
IE
.-•'
1
-•-
'
>
i5
'^n
t-17
•-:•'
Cl
<
I.
A
I
*
.1
'«' •• \ '• '.
_•
^^
r" *:i 5
'^ '• J '• ' i
^^^-Wp^-M^f*
.1
i:-4
«:-4
CL
G
'•"
.••••..•-•
. - ' • . .
u
Y—i^—-•^—-+^
IE
a
CI
•
i'*
j
'^
I.
X
}
,-
I
,-• _ , ^
I
CL
I
, . - y'
y
•
^
y
.-•
G
G
IE
Cl
/
y
*-
-^
^
a
UJ
I—J
r-
.1
.^
.'
•*'
U
0")
J
..••y
.'
r'
>
.'
J
.'—?—r—^"—"•
.•—r—T—!=•—:3—?—"^"^
•*'
•*
••'
•'"
•'"
•'
•''
•"
'*
'' I
•'
' ' — i "
T—
I I
l_l
S
a
Y:
?"
y..'•../".-••.-••..•••..••
.-•• ^ . ' . y - , - ' • /
,-•• ..-•• ..-• .X- , _
/
/
/
.••'• .•"• .•••• •••
.••..'
••
• • • . • • • . • • - • • - • • • " -••••
I i
II
II
II
I?
.n
-^
1^
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 10
Segment 10
H
_a
L
'I
.'•
T
i~i
' , —
'•
1:1
^
F T
112
I,
I.
i_ I,
\
i_
1.1_
1^ 1^ i_
i_
I
.^ * I t ' ' ^1 • "j • ^1 • j
• j
./. - • • '
ii
- <
iZ
•:
^ • "
c
. - • ' *
. • - • • '
. - - • • '
G
G
IE
Cl
.•-
•;. c. •-
\
L ' . '. ' . <• '. ' . ' . ' . •. V '• "-
00
00
•-. '•.•-.••-.•-.••-."'-. v - . ' x ' - r - - . '
I
^^y .•.-' .•.-*
I
I
•> • ^
• I
• I
'
I
•
> •
t
t
I
I
I
I
I — 1 .
I
n
D.
G
G
IE
.-'
IS
I.
. - • • '
CL
I
a•i
P
*A
V - ' * - *
•»."'
Cl
'*
*il
"U
•"jii I
"*
*
nm
••••fc •
i
I
ii
.1
<:i
n
»'•
-1
'T
•:-4
% ' • " t * ' ' > "• " l "• ' < "• ' l "• " l
I
I
4- G
G
IE
Cl
I
V
I.
a
.1
»
H
r
'
-
*
'
?
I * >> " lI " '
•
"•^"—=•
r
i-
•••
J
^'
}
}
-•'*.••' -- -•• -•••. ' .•- ••• y
-
•
-
•
y
-•
-•
r
y" y" .-•" .-•
7
7^
T'
.-•• y
.-'
y
i~i
Ij
n
Iri
ifl
lN3Cia3d
Figure N 11
Segment 11
I I
<="4
c^
'
I
G
G
[E
Cl
I
1^1 1^1 • .1 •• j
.i::
U
I I
. , fi I I -|
>
^ '
*
I
UJ
1'
I.
•.
I.
• j
i:7
i
a
113
1^ T
UJ
.1
'
UJ
'
'
.1
I
J
•
'
.1
• - • -
,1
J
J»
•
-
' , ' ' . < ' _ > '
.
-
•
»
•
CL
*
-
G
G
IE
CI
-
p
f
a
j
LJ
.1
LL
•••"'.•-•••''•-^•'".•••••"'..-••"'..-••'.-•""
.1
.»
.<
.1
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
, - • • ' ' .-••••' x - - ' . - • • • • ' y ^
I
I ^
•
f
B
n
n
*»—-1
.^i
G
G
IE
..•••'"..
'L
CO
*
>
CI
CL
UJ
O.
C-4
f
Crl
^
"
>' — •>•
•
•
'T •
!•
J
— ^
•• I
I *
•
I
•I
'I
I ' '
•
I
J
" I
'
I
• I
CL
<-4
\- G
G
•
IE
Cl
<
UJ
V .? V I
.••*'
CxJ
.•••
.-•*'
-• ••
-•••
. y
-••
.-••'
-•••
.••"
-••
-••"
-••
-••
.••*
'
,'
•
r
I
y
f
'
y
-
.•"'
.••"
.••"
.••"
.'
.•
^
t
R
I
»•
.'
'
<
.'—^i.-•"
.•
I
I
CL
G
..•• ..•• r
rG
' I I ' I (E
Cl
-••"
.••'
•
I
.-•-
•
t
.-•• ..-• .-' .-• .-••
.
1
.
I
.
LJ
I
.1
.•••
-••*
-••
*
UJ
CO
y'
1:1
S
y
I
-€—t—I.
i_i
I
1^
ir'43Zid3d
Figure N 12
Segment 12
C=4
^
i_i
I
en
114
.1
I
CL
^ ^ " ^ • ^ ^
l_
O
*•
G
G
IE
d
-l-P-
*
• f a a ^ ^ M • J t 1^1 J - ^ » J —
n
a
n
CL
(f)
<
i.
G
G
IE
'-, '-.. '-. v v. V—T-rr
<
P
en
h-ir
Cl
•
.1
i:-4
CL
G
G
IE
Cl
I
•:-4
a
1
CL
r-^')
I- G
p
•
I " — ^ •.
•-.
V.
-f^
'I
•
^
•
T '
G
r' ' ' I "
IE
Cl
-
*—
a
UJ
X
Cl
I
UJ
'i
II
"'•
I
Q
*
''•
'f
Q
J
'.
',
X
I-
I 'i
i I
I I
n
I I
in
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 13
Segment 13
I I
i~i
i I
115
> • ¥_
1 "^i
CL
f.
»_'
F
r• '
T •"»
r
1 '
I
G
G
IE
*
CI
a
- <
i.._.j
•A
n
.'" r-,
••••'
1^
' • .
1^
1^
**•«
*•.
I,
••,
*'.
I,
" " * *'.
I,
* * • •
'*.
" * • •
'*.
I.
* ' •
*••
' " .
*'•
T
-
Q:
UJ
>.
I,
I.
' • *
'*•
I •
' • *'•
•
•,
1.^
'•-
*•-
-
'.
*•-
',
*•-.
•
\
-
L,
••-
^
IE
CJ
*'•.
''*.
-->
.
a
•:-4
CL
iX
I-
G
G
IE
Cl
1
•
*
•
* —
a
•.1
CL
I
I
I,
UJ
I,
1
•.
I
•^
•'
'
'
'
I- G
G
' ~T
CE
Cl
•-
•
*
-fc
I
I
i.^.'
*
a
LJ
CO
I
I I
«
—r
8
I
I
».
_s
I :,<
I I
I
I
I
I
'.
.
^
C
n
«
I i
1^
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 14
Segment 14
.:=4
i_
i,
1.
•.'
116
" '
'
'
'•
''
*'
*'
'.
'.
'
'.
'.
' • *• ' i
'i
'i
'« ' •
'.
'.
'i
». ' .
'•
•
I.
•'
I.
•'
' . ' • ' . ' . • . » . » . » .
•
' " ' « . * . ' . " • " • •
1
'.
•. ' • . ' • .
1
- I'
I
»
I
•
f
^
t
" . " . ' • . " ' • " • . " . " • . " - J " . ' - ^ " • • ' - j
CL
G
G
IE
CI
"T
"-*
* *
' *
" '
* '
'
" • " '
* • " '
" •
" •
" '
•
" - * -
" • " •
'^.
••. "•.
* -
" •
I '
I' ' I
I
F—F"^—I
W T
^ • < •
1^
l _ *_
n
" •
* • " -
'
'
•
*
•
'
'
'
«
h
'
CL
I
i" '•j
G
i_i
[E
Cl
a•i
P
(J]
^^
'.;-,
- . " •
C&Jli
Q:
UJ
T '• I • ^ '
•
I
I
I ' I
I
I
I
^_ I
•-. •^. * ' . "-. "•. " ' .
* •
" '
* * * '
" • " * * •
" • * • " •
" • " •
" •
" • * •
* -
* • * *
* f
* '
" '
' •
" •
~'
" •
* '
•*.
I
•_ •
i:-4
'
* * * •
'
iX
(
" •
»
"'.I
Q.
•:-4
G
G
IE
a
CI
^
1^ i_ 1^
•
•
'
-^
i_ 1^ I
»-
'
'
I »^
F ' I' _ "" »
' ' ' r1"" i' »
^ >' • '«
I
1^ ! • »_ Ii_ 1^
' ' ,"ri' Z
I
'
•
!
'
•
•
'
'I• 'I.
f ' T * r
I
I • •
I
I
'
I
'
i
^
I
l
<
•
i_
'
l
'
I
l
>
'
l
G
G
IE
-
UJ
r0
!• !'•>
CI
'T ', '. '*. ''. "'. '. '. ' "^
U
00
'-
H
y
'•
'i
•• ' •
'•
'• ' •
'•
'•
'•
'•
'i
'i
'i
I I
i~i
Q
ij
'15
'"
*' ' '
'i
'i
^
'
I I
iN3Cia3d
Figure N 15
Segment 15
'
'i
¥i
.'
'
.1
I I
r
p
(J]
117
V T. i;"i.
i; I, I, *• 1 ^"p^T
"."'."''.' 1 '. T "'. T
^.TT
-!"^.•^-^•^"••^•^"\••^'•^•••!"•^'"'•]"•^'-•>^•••>•^'*^'\"^
\
•- •. *. '. •. '._'. s. *. -. *.
••-.%-••.•••."
••
-.
-.
-.
-.
-*. - .
-.
-.
".
".
•.
".
N
'.
••
'.
•-
' '
' •
'•
' •
' •
' '
'l
'*!
' l l '* M ^ f c ^ f a ' i ^
I't J I j
CL
G
-*-•
a
<
IE
Kl
I
iL •
r
f
f
I • !•' < ' I "
ihiTf
UJ
• T ' f •"!'•<
' ^ 1
1^
'I
. ^ .
1^
"*
I " 1 " ^
"•
1 . 1 1 ^
"'
"'
1 . 1 . 1
"•
•
'•
'
*•
•
*^
*•
•-. • - . •-. •-.
~-
" •
" •
*•
•-. • - . * • . "•. " • .
* •
* •
" •
* '
"'
"'
1.1_
* • • . "*.. *'. *'.. ' V * • - N . ' • - * • - ' • •
- ,
*'
*' ^
1.1_
"'
1.1_
*' "'
"'
*'
I
>
I
I
* • * ' "" * '
I
*•- '•• '*. *". **. **. '••
E
*•
l
'
I
'
I
'
a
n
en
CL
I
G
a
IE
Cl
1 . 1 .
(-4
'm * • - ' • - ' • - * * » , ' • - / • - . ' • -
'
" •
-
*•
'
•
'
CL
k
G
G
a
Cl
. . 1 . 1 . I . 1 . 1^ I .
I, 1. 1. I.
I. 1 ^ 1 . I. I . I. I. I. • . ' . ' . ' .
'•-'••-'•-•''-•''"-''--'•-''•'''•''•''•'••'••''•
I.
•-•'-••••'••-•'-•••'•-•'•
'•.'..'•.'..'..'-.'-.'-.'-.'-.'-.'-•'-•'-•'-•'-.'-..'-..'-.
' • • • ' !
'l ' • ' ! ' •
' ' '• '• ' l '• ' ' ' ' I ' l
' • ' l "•
'l
CL
G
a
_,y
.. s
UJ
r '•:i
—
LJ
,
,
"^••i''
,
,
,
I
• • • ' • , ' • ,
I
I
• • -
I
1.
[,
I..•..»•.'.
••
••
••
••
••
•
' . . ' • . ' . . ' • . ' • . ' • . ' . ' .
••
••
•
••
•
•
' • • ' . ' .
IE
Cl
a
'-'-'•-'•-.'•-.'•..'•-.'-..'•-.'•-•'-'-•'-•.'•••'••.
•
1
CO
' . ' ' - ' ' • ' ' . '
r
Cl
F
-y-yy^'y-
P
8
8
y
I I
s
s
n
1^
lN3Zid3d
Figure N 16
Segment 16
N
o
118
r
Q
y'
..'
.-•
..'
.1
I
.1
I
..'
..'
y y y y y y y
^/
t r
«
,.f
r
r
•
I
I
-
I
..'
y
Q.
G
G
IE
T-
-*
•
Cl
I.
.1
a
n
c •::'
-••• y
.••
y
.••
i
y
.••
t
y
.•'
f
..•• ..•• y
.••
.-••
'
r
.••
!•'
..•
•••'
••
.••
..••''
••'
.'
.••"•
••'
.'
.••••
••'
.•
.-'
.••
.-•
.••*•
.•"
••'
..'—7—?—:-
.••'
.••
-••
.••
••
.•••
••'
/
.••'•'
••''
•?—7—?—
••-•'
••*'
•••'
••-'
.-•'
.••
.•••"
y
^-•'
iX
CL
PG
G
IE
CI
u
Cl
iX
i:-4
-•*
if *)
*
.»'
.«•
CL
-•^
-''
--•
•-•
>
y
•'
'•* .-^
T
.1
^1
J •
.y
y'
''
-»——>-•
,r
m'
•
/
I
'1
I-
*
•
11
,
1
1
1
'
p-fr
1
G
G
IE
Cl
a
CL
G
G
IE
UJ
Cl
a
LJ
CO
/•
'
y
y
/'
y
y'
.-••' .-••
.•••'' -•••'' y ' • • • • ' • - • • • ' ' . • • - ' " . . • • ' ^ • -
•"
I*
r
/
/
I*
r
•*
I*
I.
u
s
8
r--
s
«
n
I I
ifl
lN3Zia3d
Figure N 17
Segment 17
Yi
: - i yCI
«.
••
II
r
7"^=" ^'
I.
• -
I.
-
p
?1
119
CL
.•••
OJ
.y
y
y
P G
y
I
i
I.
I
I
G
IE
d
I
I.
a
I
U")
^
•
' f
•
•f —'"r "
I
r•
CL
/
•
•'
1
'
T
I
\- G
'D
IE
I
Cl
I
i:-4
I
I
!•
>•
-H I
•
f I
I I
^
•'_t
_t
J
T''
."**
.•*'
CO
•''
•
-'"
-''
.*•'
••''
,»
.-•*
.•"'
'"'
Z'
',1 ^
,"''
.•"'
cL—i"'
.•'*
.•"*
CL
'
^
."'*
.•"*
G
G
."*'
••"'
r—I"'
I r'
IE
CI
a
r' 'i
CO
-'
..-•
/
f
y'
JL
/•
I
I
I
.1
.1
.1
.1
.'•
I
«
I
I
.1
.'
y
."-
.••
•'' -•' -•'
>'
H
G
G
IE
y
I
Cl
b;
LJ
T" '. ''. T '. ' '. '•'"''• '- '™'^
:v-o<:v>:>;;v>>Sr-\-:
.1
^
•••'
-'
U
^•*'
I
/ • " '
.1
.1
••^
.•••'
••
.1
CO
.1
.••"
•'
I
.?—_.-•
.••"'
•'
.••*'
'*
•••'
•'
,
.."
ji ' ' • ' ' , '• ' j '' ' j "'• 'j''' .1 '• ' j
;;;• -^^-- y..' ..-'
.J J;;^
J ...-' ..-..'
. /
•
.•••*
'
.•••'
'
.•••*
' — • •
1^
I i
l_l
«
I I
I I
.3
r--
s
n
I I
1^
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 18
Segment 18
H
.•••"
-•••"
'
-••''
l'-
y
"T"
r
C!
Qj
a
^
on
120
Wi
<
n:
/
-
(' *!i
•-'
/
y
.•'
*"
• ' — ' '
••-'
y
v'
y
•'
,.'
/
.•
*'
y
•*
•-'
r'
.-•
•-
•'
•*'
•'
•••'
y
•••'
/
..••
•-• y
•''
•''
.'
y
'*"
••"
..'
••
/
•*'
•'"
•-'
y
•-'
•-'
•-'
y
y
••'
•*"
--'•
•*'
•-'
'•-'
P G
G
IE
K •-. 'A Cl
y
.-•• .-•
i'''
|-''
a
^
••'
(7^
r
'
!•"
P
i'
' I"
•'
I
•'
I
I
F
•^•"•^T"""^
n
G
f^
•.1
^-iH
G
•'
"
Ci
kj:<
«:-4
_l
CO
* I '
F
• p «• I
giii> • •!
' ^ '
• I
• I
'
• '»•
'
• ^ ^ J F ' " '?'
*
t
»•
I
CL
G
G
IE
Cl
<
i:-4
a
•A
L'l
T::"
—
I.. .1
_l
•
_ l "
.:"Ti
"T '•'.I
f"'
I
CL
Ay///y
G
G
IE
Cl
I
I
y
I
••'
I
I
r'
-•'
i'—
'
1^ 1^ 1^ 1^ I
y
u
•••.^si^-!••-•••J•••J••J•^->-••J••^
. / .- ..••• ^ i — ' ^ . — * • - — ^
UJ
CO
1^1
11
^
a
I I
r--
11
in
n
W
lN3Cid3d
Figure N 19
Segment 19
H
a
1^ 1^ 1 , 1 ^ 1 , 1 ^
^ * J ' . ' ' j '' j "' -'"' j
.-•••
X
p
1^
il\
1^
I^""
p
-ilL
121
UJ
I
. ^ . . ' • • . ' • . . ' • • . ' - . ' • . ' - . ' - . ' • - . ' • - . ' • - . '
'v**.
»
1 • r-
" r - -t^' F ' F ' - ^ - r •! ' I '• I • I'
• ' • • ' • ' . ' - . ' - . ' - '
' • - * " . ' " . * " . ' - . ' - . *-. *-. • - . * - . *". • - . ' - . "•. "•. * • . " - .
•-. ' * . ' - . " - . ' " - . ' - . ' - . ' - . ' • - . • • , * ' - , ' • - . ' " •
"'.*"•.'"•.'••
r •F '
'*-/•-.'•-
I
I
I!
I
»
' - '*- '•• ' • - ' • - '*- ' * - " ' - *•-'"'
CL
P G
G
IE
O
<
n
a
n
if)
'
'
'^
-^
•
•
'
'
•
•
•
-
\- G
G
IE
CI
I
J
I
«.'.'.'.'
.
' • "
• •
* • .
* ' •
I
I
I I
':-4
' • •
' • -
" • -
• • -
' • -
' • -
* • -
• • -
' • -
' • -
• • -
• • -
••
" • .
'
CO
CO
<
I
J
•
•
»
.
CL
G
G
IE
a
Cl
•
l._..l
I
'O
" '
* •
' -
" •
" •
* ' •
* •
" •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
* •
I
I
1
I
I
I
Q.
G
G
IE
Cl
I
I
I
I
. • . ' . • . ' . ' . ' • ' . ' • ' . ' .
a
'•
>-j'"-N>/''-j''>'<'^''^'^"'--''-'"-'',''i"'"'"•""••'"•"'"••'••'••"••'•"••"••
"• "• " • • ' • • ^ • - " • • ' i
•
• "• ' • " • • ' • . ' • • ' • •
'•"J"''
UJ
CO
II
i_i
S
y
i_i
I---
n
y
in
ir'43Cid3d
Figure N 20
Segment 20
"^yraft. I
H
••
I'l"."-.
*
•i''i
i. -^^~
122
APPENDIX 0:
PRODUCTION STAFF
U^
123
Producer
Betty Land Gaines, Midland College
Assistants to the Producer
Linda Fields
Linda Smith
Marcia Norton
Patty Squyres
Linda Reece
Susan Swan
Marsha Slattery
Ann Wells
Media Technicians
Beth Bourland
Julia Olgin
Beverly O'Rear
Camera Crew
Beth Bourland
Janice Klapproth
Julia Olgin
Consultants
Dr. Connie Steele, Texas Tech University
Kelly Scheel Rainbolt
Jerry Watson, Midland College