Cognitive development begins in childhood, continues throughout a person’s entire life, and can be defined differently by different psychologists. For psychologist Jean Piaget, cognitive development comes down to the cognitive-developmental theory which states that children are constantly actively creating knowledge as they learn and explore their world. Piaget divides this development into four main stages; sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. This paper will focus on the preoperational stage of development which takes place from ages two to seven years. One of the main changes that can be observed in cognitive development during this stage include an increase in symbolic, pretend activities. Children begin to partake in make-believe play which involves new characteristics such as becoming less self-centered, more complex, and detached from the real-life conditions that are related to it. Children begin to use objects as symbols to represent other things. A recent study conducted in 2016 was able to determine that pretend-play is important for the development of executive functions within children. The researchers found that children who partook in a “5-week fantastical pretend-play intervention showed improvements in” executive functions, whereas the children who partook in the non-imaginative play or the “business-as-usual” control did not show this improvement in executive functions (Thibodeau, Gilpin, Brown, & Meyer). The results of this study show that while pretend-play is part of a child’s natural cognitive development, it is also very important for the further development of the child in other aspects. Also unique to the preoperational stage is the development of animistic thought which was defined by Piaget as “the belief that inanimate objects can possess lifelike qualities, such as thoughts, wishes, feelings, and intentions” (Berk, 2014).
Within the preoperational stage, children lack the ability to complete tasks involving conservational thought. Conservation is “the idea that certain physical characteristics of objects remain the same, even when their outward appearance changes” (Berk, 2014). This topic has been investigated greatly and while it is unique to this stage of cognitive development, there are some factors that can interfere with it. In a study conducted by Galler and Ramsey in 1987, they found that early malnutrition can delay when a child is able to perform conservation tasks successfully. They were also able to conclude that this outcome was independent of environmental factors. While malnutrition can impact conservation, it was found that lack of proper schooling does not impact this development. This was investigated in 6-year-old children, some of which had been without public schools while others had attended school for those 4 years. There was no significant difference in the success of conservation tasks between the two groups of children. The results of this study imply that the acquisition of conservation is a natural process that children develop rather than are taught or learn from formal schooling. This paper will look into and investigate the preoperational stage by looking into those specific developments previously discussed such as conservation, animistic thought, and pretend play.
Methods
For this study, the researcher chose to investigate the characteristics of the preoperational stage by interacting with and observing children within the age group. The study focused on three siblings, Avery, Mia, and Lucas. Avery is a six-year-old female who is currently in first grade, Mia is a five-year-old female in kindergarten, and Lucas is a three-year-old male who is in preschool. Before beginning the study, the researcher spoke with the parents of the children to obtain verbal consent for their children to be observed and interacted with. The first portion of the research involved Avery and some tasks relating to conservation. Avery was first presented with two equal pieces of string laid side by side on the table in front of her. Upon them being placed, the researcher asked Avery, “Is this one bigger (while pointing to the first string), is this one bigger (while pointing to the second string), or are they both the same?” Avery answered that both of the strings were the same size. The researcher then moved the strings so that they were still side by side but one was placed further left than the other. The researcher then asked Avery the question set again and this time Avery replied that the string on the bottom was longer than the string on the top. For the next task, the researcher placed two rows of five pennies equally spaced apart and asked Avery if one row had more pennies than the other or if they both had the same amount of pennies. Avery replied that both rows had the same amount of pennies. When the researcher then spaced out the top row so that the pennies were further apart and asked Avery the same question, she changed her answer so that the top row had more pennies than the bottom row. The third task involved containers of water. The researcher filled two of the same container each with the same level of water and asked Avery if one had more water than the other or if they were the same. Avery initially replied that the container on the left had more so the researcher added more water to the left container until Avery agreed that they were equal. The researcher then took the container on the right and poured the water into a wider container and asked Avery if one had more water than the other or if they were both the same. This time Avery answered that the container on the left had more water. The final task was to present Avery with two round balls of playdough of equal size and ask her if one was bigger than the other or if they were both the same. Avery replied that they were both the same. The researcher then rolled one of the balls into a long, thin, roll and again asked Avery the same questions, except this time she replied that the long, thin roll of playdough was bigger than the other ball of playdough. As the researcher was performing these tasks with Avery, any notes and results were recorded on a sheet of lined paper. After completing the questions with Avery, Avery began to perform similar tasks with the researcher such as presenting the researcher with a green marker and asking to find a green marker of the same exact color. Avery also recorded her findings on a sheet of lined paper in a similar format as the researcher (see Appendix A).
Following the tasks with Avery, the researcher observed Mia and Lucas playing. Mia was playing with playdough and created what she called a chocolate fudge cake with “shark flowers that spit water, frosting, and fruit roll ups”. To anyone else this probably looked like a mound of multicolored play dough, but Mia was able to visualize the different aspects of her creation (see Appendix B). Lucas was also playing with playdough at the table except he was only opening containers of it and mixing the colors together. Later on, Lucas was playing with a few of the pennies used in the study. He was rolling them around the table and then decided to place them in the containers of water to see if they could swim. Once the pennies were in the water and Lucas decided they could not swim, he had to take the pennies out because he thought they were drowning. Following that, Lucas decided to show the researcher his extensive truck collection. He had trucks of all different sizes and they were grouped together by type of truck. He said that the green and purple monster truck was his favorite of all of them because it was the only truck that could do backflips. The researcher then played with Lucas and his trucks and he demonstrated the backflips until he dropped the truck and had to take a break because he thought the truck got hurt. Finally, Lucas drew some scribbles on the page of notes the researcher had taken and when asked what he drew, Lucas responded that they were eggs (see Appendix C).
Discussion
From this study I was able to learn more about Piaget’s preoperational stage of development by actually seeing it firsthand by interacting with the children. While working with Avery I was able to see the conservation tasks and better understand the logic she used to come to her responses. It was also very interesting to see how she mimicked the questions I asked her by asking me similar ones in the same language and took very similar notes that were formatted the way I had done mine. Avery was within the age range of the preoperational stage and she displayed the lack of conservation exactly as described by Piaget. Mia was very creative and was partaking in make believe play while she was creating with playdough. The playdough did not look like what she said it actually was, but she was able to use it as a symbol for something else. For example, while her creation just looked like a mound of playdough to me, see saw the different aspects she was creating and saw how it was a chocolate fudge cake. Lucas displayed a lot of animistic thinking and engaged in mainly pretend play. He gave lifelike properties to the pennies and the monster truck by saying the pennies could drown and the monster truck was hurt from falling during a backflip. Lucas also displayed categorization by collecting trucks and organizing them into different groups. He had groups of fire trucks, monster trucks, really big trucks, and smaller trucks. Animistic thinking, pretend play, and categorization are all characteristic of the concrete operational stage of development as described by Piaget.
While conducting the study, the kids just thought we were playing and had a really good time with the activities. Their father was also in the room while this was taking place and was very curious about the conservation tasks I performed with Avery. He watched as I did the water conservation task and commented how there was actually the same amount of water even after I poured it into the new container. He wanted to know if Avery answering incorrectly meant that she wasn’t smart enough or would have trouble in school. I then explained to him about concept of conservation and how children the ages of 2-7, such as his children, don’t fully understand it yet. I explained that this was normal and they will attain that understanding as they continue to develop. He thought that that was interesting and was relieved to know this is normal for children Avery’s age.
When looking into articles that relate to this topic, I actually had some trouble and it seemed that there were not very many related to the concept of conservation in children in the preoperational stage. Further, many of the articles I did find were from many years ago and were not necessarily up to date. It seems that there could be much more research done regarding this topic that looks into factors that affect conservation, such as, socioeconomic status, culture, or biology.