Advertisement

Interaction and instruction in the conservation experiment

  • Ed Elbers
Article

Abstract

Though there has been considerable research in recent years into the ways in which children’s performance in conservation experiments is affected by the context of interaction, this has so far lacked a coherent theoretical basis. In this article, concepts from communication theory are applied to the behaviour of experimenter and subject in the experimental situation. It is argued that the child behaves according to the «metacontract» of a teacher-pupil interaction, i.e. he or she expects to receive instruction. In the classical conservation experiment of Piaget, these expectations are thwarted, because the experimenter does not conform to the rules of a teacher-pupil relationship. Instead, the experimenter follows the rules of a different metacontract—that of examination. In experiments where conservation abilities are taught, and in group interactions where conserving children cooperate with non-conserving children, the participants do behave according to the same metacontract. But the value of these studies is reduced by the exclusive attention paid to the eventual achievements of the child, instead of the cognitive processes during the learning phase.

Key words

Adult-child interaction Communication theory Conservation Instruction 

Le «métacontrat» de communication dans l’expérience de conservation: interaction et instruction

Résumé

Bon nombre de recherches étudient l’influence du contexte interactionnel sur les performances de jeunes enfants dans l’expérience de conservation de type Piaget, mais jusqu’à maintenant ces recherches ne reposent guère sur un fondement théorique. Dans cet article, des conceptions empruntées à la théorie de la communication sont utilisées pour analyser les conduites de l’expérimentateur et de l’enfant dans la situation expérimentale. L’auteur avance que l’enfant se comporte dans cette situation selon le «métacontrat» de l’interaction entre professeur et élève; c’est-à-dire que l’enfant s’attend à se trouver en face d’un adulte enseignant. Dans l’expérience classique de conservation de Piaget les attentes de l’enfant sont déçues, parce que l’expérimentateur ne se conforme pas aux règles de l’interaction entre professeur et élève. L’expérimentateur se comporic selon un autre métacontrat, celui de l’examen. Dans les situations expérimentales où l’on tente d’enseigner le principe de conservation et dans les interactions de groupe dans lesquelles il y a coopération d’enfants conservants et non-conservants, les participants se comportent selon un type unique de métacontrat. Mais la signification de ces expériences reste limitée puisque l’attention porte uniquement sur les performances finales des enfants sans tenir compte de l’ensemble des processus cognitifs pendant l’apprentissage.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Braine, M., & Shanks, B. (1965) The development of conservation of size. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brainerd, C. (1978) Learning research and Piagetian theory. In L. Siegel, & C. Brainerd (Eds.), Atternatives to Piaget. Critical essays on the theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dockrell, J., Campbell, R., & Neilson, I. (1980) Conservation accidents revisited. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 3, 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1975) Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s minds. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson, M. (1982) Conservation: What is the question? British Journal of Psychology, 73, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelman, R. (1969) Conservation acquisition: A problem of learning to attend to relevant attributes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 7, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hargreaves, D., Molloy, C., & Pratt, A. (1982) Social factors in conservation. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayes, J. (1972) The child’s conception of the experimenter. In S. Farnham-Diggory (Ed.), Information processing in children. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kaye, K. (1982) The mental and social life of babies. How parents create persons. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kuhn, D. (1974) Inducing development experimentally: Comments on a research paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 10, 590–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Light, P., Buckingham, N., & Robbins, A. (1979) The conservation task as an interactional setting. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacLure, M., & French, P. (1981) A comparison of talk at home and at school. In G. Wells (Ed.) Learning through interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. McGarrigle, J., & Donaldson, M. (1974) Conservation accidents. Cognition, 3, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mishler, E. (1972) Implications of teacher strategies for language and cognition: Observations in firstgrade classrooms. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Neilson, I., Dockrell J., & McKechnie, J. (1983) Does repetition of the question influence children’s performance in conservation tasks? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orne, M. (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perner, J., Leekam, S., & Wimmer, H. (1984). The insincerity of conservation questions: Children’s growing sensitivity to experimenter’s epistemic intentions, presented at the conference of the British Psychological Society, Developmental Section, Lancaster, September 1984.Google Scholar
  19. Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1980) Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & Schubauer-Leonì, M.-L. (1981) Conflict and cooperation as opportunities for learning. In W. Robinson (Ed.), Communication in development. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Robert, M., & Fortin, A. (1983) Observational learning of conservation: When imitative practice makes nearly perfect. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson, E., Goelman, H., & Olson, D. (1983) Children’s understanding of the relation between expressions (what was said) and intentions (what was meant). British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rogoff, B. (1982) Integrating context and cognitive development. In M. Lamb & A. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology. Vol. 2. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Rommetveit, R. (1978) On Piagetian cognitive operations, semantic competence and message structure in adult-child communication. In I. Markova (Ed.), The social context of language. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Rommetveit, R. (1979) Deep structure of sentences versus message structure. In R. Rommetveit & R. Blakar (Eds.), Studies of language, thought and verbal communication. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rose, S., & Blank, M. (1974) The potency of context in children’s cognition: an illustration through conservation. Child Development, 45, 499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Samuel, J., & Bryant, P. (1984) Asking only one question in the conservation experiment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 25, 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegel, L., & Hodkin, B. (1982) The garden path to the understanding of cognitive development: Has Piaget led us into the poison ivy? In S. Modgil, & C. Modgil (Eds.), Jean Piaget. Consensus and controversy. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  29. Silverman, I. (1979) Context and number conservation. Child Study Journal, 91, 205–212.Google Scholar
  30. Sinha, C., & Carabine, B. (1981) Interactions between lexis and discourse in conservation and comprehension tasks. Journal of Child Language, 8, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walkerdine, V. (1982) From context to text; a psychosemiotic approach to abstract thought. In M. Beveridge (Ed.), Children thinking through language. London: E. Arnold.Google Scholar
  32. Wells, G. (Ed.) (1981) Learning through interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wells, G. (1983) Talking with children: the complementary roles of parents and teachers. In M. Donaldson, R. Grieve, & C. Pratt (Eds.), Early childhood development and education. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Wertsch, J. (1979) From social interaction to higher psychological processes. Human Development, 22, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wertsch, J. Semiotic mechanisms in joint cognitive activity. In B. Lomov (Ed.), Psikhologicheskie problemy obshcheniya (Psychological problems of communication), in press.Google Scholar
  36. Wertsch, J., McNamee, G., McLane, J., & Budwig, N. (1980) The adult-child dyad as a problem solving system. Child Development, 51, 1215–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© I.S.P.A. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ed Elbers
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Social Science, Department of PsychonomicsUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations