Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
By
Melanie Perkins
Leslie Lovell
Jennifer Miller
Crystal Dunnermann
Katie Ross
Sandra Scott
Stacy Wegrzyn
David Edgington
Jamie Potts
EDPS 383 The Psychology of Teaching and Learning
Mrs. Amy Salvo
Spring 2012
1
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
Table of Contents
2
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
3
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to determine if age and academic ability levels had an
influence on cognitive development. We hypothesized that those of an older age had a higher
cognitive development than those of a younger age. Also, that those of a higher academic ability
had a higher level of cognitive thinking. Three children were tested; one the age of five and two
the age of eight, who had varying academic abilities. The test score relied upon their range of
cognitive development and the answers varied greatly. The test results showed that age and
academic ability levels do effect a child’s cognitive development. We also were able to
determine that each individual has a different level of cognitive development and thinking.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
4
Background
Introduction:
“It is with children that we have the best chance of studying the development of logical
knowledge, mathematical knowledge, physical knowledge, and so forth.” Jean Piaget
The research being conducted for this project was designed to identify whether age and
academic ability levels had an influence on children’s cognitive development. Our action
research team located a reliable cognitive development test to administer to our selected three
children. The background information on our selected three children is as follows: Student 1 is a
five year old female in kindergarten, Student 2 is an eight year old male in the third grade, and
Student 3 is an eight year old male in the second grade. It was our goal to establish if age and
academic ability levels affected the cognitive development of children.
Statement of Problem:
As teachers, it is important to know that with the span of ages in your room, there is also
going to be a span of cognitive development and thinking. It is our goal to learn how age effects
children’s cognitive development and how to adapt our teaching to meet the needs of all children
in our classroom. By investigating the influence age and academic ability has we will be better
able to identify variances and work to meet the needs of all the cognitive levels in our room.
Need for the Study:
The research implicated in this project was noteworthy to parents, teachers, and support
staff. As teachers we need to understand the impact age plays in cognitive development of
children. It is important to remember the different stages of cognitive development. For these
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
5
reasons teachers need to mold their teaching and activities to meet the needs of all their students
on their own unique cognitive level.
Research Questions and Hypothesis:
For this case study, it was our objective to determine the cognitive development of three
different children that are separated by age or academic ability. As a group we believe that this
material will help us in aiding the children we are/will be teaching. It is the belief of this group
that the older children would maintain a higher cognitive level than those younger and out of the
two older children the one of higher academic ability would have higher cognitive thinking
skills.
Limitations and Delamination of the Study:
The results of our tests were concluded with very helpful information of how age affects
the cognitive development of children. The objective of this study was to observe two children
that were the same age and one child at a younger age. The results of the test narrowed because
of the small quantity of children studied and the lack of diversity. The three children chosen
came from similar soco-economic backgrounds. The results could also be limited due to the fact
that the two older children were males and the younger child was a female. The study also
neglected to include any participates with physical disabilities.
Definition of Terms:

Schemes: a set of linked mental representations of the world, which we use both to
understand and to respond to situations

Assimilation: Fitting new information into existing schemes.

Accommodation: Altering existing schemes or creating ones in response to new
information.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process

6
Equilibration: Search for mental balance between cognitive schemes and information
from the environment
Summary:
This research project set out to identify whether age and academic ability had an effect on
the cognitive level and thinking skills of children. To test our hypothesis, we ran a series of tests
on three children, two at the age of eight and one at the age of five. The procedure tests run on
the three children consisted of activities that involved interpretation of an Aesop’s fable,
classification of objects, conservation of beads, and combination logic with one-digit numbers.
These test allowed us to determine based on our individual study which children were of higher
cognitive ability.
By performing this research, we will as future educators be aware and sensitive to the
varying cognitive levels that will be present in our classrooms. It will help teachers to
incorporate specific teaching methods, strategies, activities, and atmospheres that will best suit
the students in the classroom individually and at a whole group level. There were a number of
limitations that a raised after the group revved the testing procedure of the study. Although
biases in soco-economic standards and other levels of diversity were found the results show an
introductory level of results which could be carried further into more diverse situations upon
further studying.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
7
Literature Review
Introduction:
This action research project was designed to investigate the way children think in order to
determine their cognitive development levels. The research set out to observe and discover the
varying cognitive levels of thinking for three children. There were two children at the age of
eight, but at varying academic levels and one separate child at five years of age. Upon the
completion of this action research, it is our goal to see how age and academic ability might affect
the children’s cognitive thinking abilities. The hope for this action research finding is that it will
benefit others and help educators to have a better understanding of the varying cognitive
development levels that are part of every classroom.
Cognitive Development Theory:
This theory was developed by Jean Piaget and it “described stages that children pass
through in the development of intelligence and formal thought processes” (Cherry, n.d.). Based
on Piaget’s theory we were able to find out that children do vary in cognitive thinking from
adults. We discovered that it wasn’t that children were less knowledgeable, rather just different
in their thinking ability (Eddy, 2010). In order to fully understand the theory, we thought it
would also be necessary to give a true definition of cognitive development, it is “the
development of intelligence, conscious thought, and problem-solving ability that begins in
infancy” (Medical Dictionary, 2012).
From further study of the cognitive theory, we discovered that there are factors that
influence thinking to change and go thought different stages. These factors include biological
maturation, activity, social experience, and equilibration (Woolfolk, 2010, p.32). Children must
be able to explore, interact with their environment, and make mistakes, in order to learn and
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
8
develop their thinking. From these experiences children will learn to organize information into
what Piaget calls schemes. Schemes are “a set of linked mental representations of the world,
which we use both to understand and to respond to situations” (McLeod, 2009). These schemes
become “mental maps” and are used to categorize experiences. The categorization goes like this,
if a child approaches an object or a situation that they are familiar with it will fit into their
already determined schema and assimilation occurs. If the child runs across something they are
unfamiliar with they have to accommodate the new experience and make new schemes or adjust
them, which will result in the child going back into equilibration (Funderstanding, n.d.).
Assimilation is defined as, “fitting new information into existing schemes” and accommodation
is defined as, “altering existing schemes or creating new ones in response to new information”
(Woolfolk, 2010, p. 33). Equilibration is extremely important to Piaget’s cognitive development
theory because it is through the desire for the mind to be at equilibrium, that the changes in
thought occur and therefore the advancement in thinking occurs and progresses.
According to Piaget’s Cognitive Theory, there are four stages of thinking. These stages
range from newborns to adults and go in sequential order. The first stage is Sensorimotor and
the age range is usually 0-2 years old. During this stage infants learn, “about themselves and
their world through their developing sensory and motor activity” (Papalia, 2009, p.146). This
stage is vital to understanding extremely low functioning thinkers, but mainly babies and
toddlers.
The next two stages are Preoperational, which usually ranges from ages 2-7 and
Concrete-Operational, which ranges from 7-11. These two stages of cognitive development are
going to vital for elementary teachers. The understanding of how differently these two stages of
thinkers are is what sets apart teaching styles for older and younger grade levels. The
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
9
Preoperational thinkers expand upon symbolic thought, one way logic, simple categorization,
and tend to be egocentric (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 34-35). Egocentric means, “Assuming that others
experience the world the same way they do” (Woolfolk, 2010, p.35). They also struggle with
conservation and decentering. Teacher’s for this level of thinkers will need to use visual aids,
make instruction time short, help students understand another’s perspective, understand that
students have varying meanings for the same word, and allow hands-on learning (Woolfolk,
2010, p.36-38). The Concrete-Operational thinker’s use reasoning to solve problems, think and
problem solve only here and now situations, master classification, grow in math, use inductive
reasoning and understand conservation (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 35-37). Teacher’s for this level of
thinkers will need to use visual aids, cut instruction time to medium to short lengths, explain
complex ideas, and give students logical problems to think about and solve (Woolfolk, 2010, p.
36-38).
The Preoperational and Concrete-Operational stages vary in skill level and ability. Two
ways that they vary is in the ability to understand conversation and the level at which they
classify. In the Concrete-Operational stage most children have the ability to conserve numbers,
length, and liquid volume. Conservation is the idea that a quantity remains the same though it
changes in appearance. “If you show a child four marbles in a row, then spread them out, the
preoperational child will focus on the spread, and tend to believe that there are now more
marbles than before” (Boeree, 2009). Piaget believed that children’s intellectual development is
based on physical development and is affected by their interactions with their environment
(Garhart 2000). He believed that everyone fits into one of his four stages of development. A key
concept of Piaget is classification. Classification refers to the ability to group objects together on
the basis of common features (Atherton, 2011).
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
10
The final stage is going to mostly concern middle school, high school, and college
teachers but there are times that upper elementary teachers may run across students thinking in
this range. The final stage is the formal stage of thinking, which is represented by those who use
abstract thinking and who are capable of both inductive and hypothetical-deductive reasoning
(Piaget, 1964, p. 4). Students at this age can make a hypothesis about something that is not right
in front of them and can do experiments to test the accuracy of it.
During our study we tested three children in four types of Piaget’s experiential tests.
They consisted of reading an Aesop Fable, a classification experiment, a combination logic and
conversation activity. Combination logic is the ability for a student to consider all possible
combinations of a set of elements (Cook & Cook, 2010). This type of behavior can develop in
the Concrete-Operational stage. For example, having a 3rd grader write all the possible numbers
out comes using their phone number. An Aesop Fable is a short fictitious story that is meant to
describe a moral lesson (Guralnik, 1968). Aesop’s famous book of fables is dated back to the
5th century B. C. The stories are short to keep the attention of children and features animals as
characters that speak as people. The fable used in this research review was, The Lion and the
Mouse. This story is about a lion that caught a little mouse. The little mouse asked the lion to let
him go and states that he will help him in some way in the future. The lion agrees and later is
found captured. The mouse chews away the ropes, freeing the lion. The moral of the story
according to Aesops-fables.org.uk is “little friends may prove great friends” (2011).
Upon doing further research about Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, we discovered
some areas that have been questioned and challenged. The theorist Lev Vygotsky, challenged
Piaget’s theory and stressed that Piaget failed to include the effects of social setting on cognitive
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
11
development (McLeod, 2009). Others have challenged his methods of studies and claimed they
were biased because of the small amount of participants, the fact that he record data alone at
times, and that his test were at times confusing and difficult (McLeod, 2009). But even through
these challenges Piaget’s theory has been an inspiration to those who followed him and educators
of many generations.
Summary:
Jean Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory has had an impact on all areas of study that
involves children, ranging from education to doctors. Although there are disputes about whether
the stages are correct and if Piaget’s tests where unbiased, there is still a lot to be learned from
his findings. Educators gain the understanding that some of their children may be at varying
levels of thinking and that children in older grades can think in different ways than younger
children. Our evaluation of the three children proved that children at varying academic levels
and at varying ages do think differently which supports Piaget’s theory. As future educators, we
believe this study will benefit us in establishing a classroom that is appropriate for the level of
cognitive thinkers in our room. We hope that the knowledge we gained from this study will give
us a better understanding and help us improve our teaching styles, techniques, and expectations
of our students in our future classroom and benefit the student’s academic growth.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
12
Procedure
Introduction:
This group decided to execute a series of tasks to determine the cognitive development
and language of three school age children. We worked collaboratively to find relevant research
on the four stages of Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development. Upon collecting
information for our research study we collect multiple sources that would be applicable to our
project. We tried to select unbiased participates to perform multiple assessment activities on that
would test their thinking. The group used a number of different instruments to observe stages of
Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development.
Instrumentation:
We used a number of different instruments to determine the developmental stage each
child was in. The first task was the interpretation of a story. We decided to use an Aesop fable,
The Lion and The Mouse. The story was read to each student and then they were asked what the
story meant. The group was then able to determine which stage of cognitive thinking each
student was in, by how they responded. For the second task, a classification activity was
performed by the three participates. Each student was given a number of items and then asked
them to group those items together. The items used consisted of a picture from a magazine,
pencil, magic marker, piece of chalk, notebook, paper, drawing paper, thumb tack, a pin, scotch
tape, and a paper sack.
The third task involved conservation of beads which would determine the cognitive level.
With a set of beads the test administer made two lines of beads side by side and asked the child if
both lines have the same amount. Next one of the sets of beads were spread and then the test
participates were asked which one had more. The finally part to this test involved returning the
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
13
spread out beads and bunching them together and again asking which one had more. The tests
administer also used two equal balls of clay, and asked if each ball had the same amount. Then
the balls of clay were flattened into a pancake and the test participates were asked which one had
more.
The final tasked used combination logic to determine each level. Each test participate
was given five different one-digit numbers on small pieces of paper. The test participates were
then asked to make as many different 3-digit numbers as they could. The test administer
recorded all the results as the test participates performed the activities.
Selection of Participants:
This action research group decided to use three school age children to see if age has a
direct effect on what stage of development a child is in. Two of the children were the same age
but functioning at different achievement levels. Student one was a five year old female in
Kindergarten, student two was an eight year old male in third grade and student three was an
eight year old in second grade. The test participates were chosen by one of the group members
because they fit the criteria the group had set prior and because they were easily accessible by
the group member who performed the testing procedures and activities.
Collection Procedures and Data Description:
In order to accumulate our data we gave each of the three students the same four tasks to
assess each students thinking. Based upon Jean Piaget’s, Theory of Cognitive Development we
were able to select how we would determine each students level based upon the response each
participate gave the test administer task.
Task one we asked the child what they thought The Lion and The Mouse fable meant. If
they responded emotionally, on a personal level, it was considered a pre-operational response. If
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
14
the student based his or her answer on the literal content of the story, we classified it as a
concreted operational response. If the student went beyond the literal content of the story and
showed an understanding to the moral side of the story they were considered part of the formal
operational response.
Task two was a classification exercise using different objects to be grouped together
based on their likeness. Early pre-operational was considered when the grouping consisted on
functional relationships. Such as, tape and paper sack because the tape can shut the sack, or
pencil and writing paper. The pencil is used to write on the paper. If the groupings were based
on perceptual features, such as, paper and picture because they are the same shape, pin and tack
because they have a sharp point. A concrete operational response was considered if the student
based the grouping on a common element, such as things that were made of paper and things you
can hang objects with.
For task three we decided to use a conservation task involving beads and clay. Preoperational responses were concluded when the student indicated that one group had more than
the other when changes were made. Concrete operational responses were concluded if the
students responded that they still had the same amount. Also, explaining his or her answer by
using identity, reversibility, or compensation as a justification to their response.
Task four was conducted using combination logic with a set of five numbers. Concrete
operational responses were concluded if the child went about the task in an arbitrary
unsystematic manner. A formal operational response was concluded if the student approached
the task in a methodical and systematic way.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
15
Summary:
Four different kinds of tasks were given to three school age children.
We were then
able to decide what stage of Jean Paget’s Theory of Cognitive Development each child was in.
This was concluded from our rubric we devised based on their answers. We viewed each of the
student’s responses and decided collectively which stage each was in.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
16
Results
STUDENT 1
Student 1 responded to, “What do you think this story means?’
•About a mouse and lion (then a small pause). The lion woke up and the mouse was there. He
put his paw on the mouse. Hunters came and tied up the lion and the mouse came and untied the
ropes.
Student 1 grouped the items as follows:
•Pencil, marker, chalk
•Paper bag and drawing paper
•Magazine page, notebook paper and Scotch tape
•Straight pin and thumbtack
Student 1 responded to, “Do both have the same amount?’
•She counted both strands and said “yes.”
•When one set was spread out she responded with the pile spread out had more.
•When the spread out beads was gathered up and asked which one has more she responded with
“they have the same.”
Student 1 responded to, “Are these two balls of clay the same size?”
•Yes
After I smashed one; student 1 responded to, “Which one has the most now?”
•Pancake
Student 1 was asked to give 3 digit numbers out of 5.
•She didn’t know what I meant by digits.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
17
STUDENT 2
Student 2 responded to “what do you think this story means?’
•The mouse can be helpful to a lion
Student 2 grouped the items as follows:
•Paper bag, magazine page, notebook paper and drawing paper
•Pencil, chalk and marker
•Thumbtack and pin
•Scotch tape
Student 2 responded to, “Do both have the same amount?’
•Yes
•When spread out he said the spread out ones had more.
•When one set was gathered up he said the gathered ones had more.
Student 2 responded to, “Are these two balls of clay the same size?
•Yes
After I smashed one; student 2 responded to, “Which one has the most now?”
•Still the same
Student 2 was asked to give 3 digit numbers out of 5.
•He understood and pulled 3 digits down randomly and put back and pulled down 3 more. He
did this repeatedly.
STUDENT 3
Student 3 responded to, “What do you think this story means?’
•Friendship
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
Student 3 grouped the items as follows:
•Marker and pencil
•Magazine paper and brown paper bag
•Chalk and Scotch tape
•Tack and pin
•Notebook and drawing paper
Student 3 responded to, “Do both have the same amount?’
•Yes
•When spread out he said the spread out ones had more.
•When one set was gathered up he said the gathered ones had more.
Student 3 responded to, “Are these two balls of clay the same size?
•Yes
After I smashed one; student 2 responded to, “Which one has the most now?”
•Pancake
Student 3 was asked to give 3 digit numbers out of 5.
•He pulled one set and said “I’m done.”
18
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
19
Age and Academic Comparison
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Age
5 years old
8 years old
8 years old
Academic Ability
Normal
Above normal
Normal
Grade Level
Kindergarten
Third
Second
Results
Aesop’s Fable
Classification
Conservation
Combination Logic
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Concrete operational
response
Concrete operational
response
Pre-operational
response
Not able to
understand activity
(most likely Preoperational response)
Pre-operational
response
Concrete operational
response
Concrete operational
response
Concrete operational
response
Formal operational
response
Concrete operational
response
Pre-operational
response
Formal operational
response
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
20
Discussion
Introduction:
Our group of college students worked to determine the cognitive level of three school-age
children; one at the age of five and two at the age of eight. We observed the students’ responses
after doing four different tasks with them. The first task was to gather their interpretations of a
story. The next task was on how they classified a group of objects. Following the second task,
the students were observed while participating in a conservation activity. Lastly, the students
were tested on combination logic. Our hypothesis was that children, at different ages and
different academic levels, will think differently. It was not a shocker to us that most of our
results confirmed that children, who are varied in age, clearly do think in differently. Our
evaluations supported the concept of Jean Peaget’s Cognitive Development Theory.
Discussion:
According to our hypothesis that children at different ages will think differently, the
results of our experiment confirmed our assumption in all, but one, task. The three students’
responses to the four tasks varied. Our results also showed that students at the same age may
think similar. Student #1 was five years old and students #2 and #3 were eight years old.
Student #1, in the first task, fell into the concrete operational response to the story; they were
focused on the literal content of the story. Student #2 replied with a formal operational response;
they went beyond the literal content of the story and indicated some understanding of the moral
of the story. Student #3 also fell into the formal operational response to the first task of their
interpretation of a story. After completing the second task dealing with the classification
experiment, it did reveal that in this category of tasks, students at different ages may think
similar when grouping objects together. Student #1, 2, and 3 all fell into the category of concrete
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
21
operational response; these student’s grouping were based on common elements so that each
object is an example of the basis of classification. For instance, they grouped the things made
out of paper and the things you can write with. Task three proves to us that even if children are
the same age, their academic ability may differ from one another. After the conservation
activity, student #1 and #3 answered with a pre-operational response; their responses indicated
that one person has more than the other when changes are made. Student #2’s answer fell into
the concrete operational response; their response explained that the amount was still the same,
but did not give an explanation. The last task of our experiment also confirmed our hypothesis;
this was the combination logic task. Student #1 responded with a concrete operational response;
they did not know what the word “digit” meant, therefore were confused. Student’s #2 and 3
both responded with a formal operational response. Although, student #2 approached the task in
an orderly and systematic way and student #3 completed the task once and said he was finished.
Conclusion:
Our results on this experiment with the three children gave us a great explanation that
those at different ages will think differently. It was our objective to figure out if age and
academic ability made a difference in the way students think. After completing each task with
each student and carefully observing and determining their operational responses, we have
confirmed our hypothesis. It is clear that students at all ages vary and think differently than
others.
Recommendations:
This experiment can be beneficial to all teachers working in the education system. It
reveals to them that students are not the same and they will think differently than their peers; not
all students think equally. When a teacher creates a lesson plan, they must take into
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
22
consideration the variations in students and try to come up with different teaching styles. This
may help with the diversity of student thinking. Knowing that students think differently will
most likely assist teachers in figuring out several ways to make their classroom a successful
learning experience for all of their students. For instance, because all students think differently,
teachers can set up, not only a PowerPoint presentation, but also give the students hands-on
experiments. This will give students, who may not have as great of thinking skills as others,
another chance to understand the concept of the lesson because the teacher is showing their
lesson with more than one teaching style. Also, our experiment with the three students will
prepare teachers of what to expect in their students; just because one student may understand
what is being taught, does not necessarily mean others will.
Summary:
Again, we hypothesized that children at different ages and at a different academic levels
think differently; our experiment validated that this is true. Giving the three students different
tasks and observing their responses show that older students are able think deeper about what is
put in front of them; whereas younger students look and grasp the simple and basic concepts of
what is given to them. Older students have the capability to look “outside of the box” when
given these tasks. Younger students seem to see things straightforward and are less likely to
think “outside of the box”.
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
23
References
Aesop Fables (2011). The Lion and the Mouse An Aesop’s Fable. Retrieved March 13, 2012,
from http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/
Atherton, J. S. (2011) Teaching and learning. Piaget’s Developmental Theory. Retrieved March
13, 2012, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm
Boeree, C. (2009). General psychology. Jean Piaget and Cognitive Development. Retrieved
March 13, 2012, from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html
Cherry, K. (n.d.). About.com: Psychology. Jean Piaget Biography. Retrieved March 14, 2012,
from http://psychology.about.com/od/profilesofmajorthinkers/p/piaget.htm
Cook, G. & Cook, J. (2010) World of Children. Retrieved March 12, 2012, from
http://instruct.tri-c.edu/dhaiduc /PSY%202010/Cook%20Chapter%2014.pdf
Eddy, S. (2010). Theories of cognitive development: Jean Piaget. Psychohawks. Retrieved
March 27, 2012, from http://psychohawks.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/theories-of
-cognitive-development-jean-piaget/
Funderstanding (n.d.). Piaget. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from http://www.funderstanding.
com/educators/piaget
Guralnik, D. (1968). Webster’s New World Dictionary. Cleveland: The World Publishing
Company.
McLeod, S. (2009). Jean Piaget. Simply Psychology. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
Medical Dictionary. (2012). Cognitive Development. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/cognitive+development
Cognitive Development and Children’s Thinking Process
24
Mooney, C. (2000). Theories of Childhood. An Introduction to Dewey, Montessori,
Erikson, Piaget, & Vygotsky. St. Paul: Redleaf Press.
Papalia, D.E., Olds, S.W., & Feldman, R.D. (2009). Human development (11th ed.) New York:
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R.E. Ripple & V.N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget
Rediscovered, pp. 7-20 (reprint in 1972).
Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11th ed.) New Jersey: Merrill, Pearson.