With three children of varying ages, Dailyn (age 5), Jennifer (age 6), and Chance (age 7), two identical jars half filled with a colored liquid. After agreeing that the containers held the same amount of water, the liquid in one container was then poured into a wider jar. Each child noted that the jar was in fact larger, however only Chance understood that though the jar was larger and the liquid’s level was lower, the jar’s still contained the same amount of liquid. Dailyn and Jennifer each gave varying replies as to what had happened. While Jennifer understood that the amount of liquid was still the same, she could not explain why. Dailyn on the other hand thought that the amount of liquid in the original container was greater than that of the second one. She stated simply, “Cause LOOK at it Ms! That one’s higher! Can’t you SEE it?”
For the second experiment, I used two balls of yellow Play-Doh. After twenty minutes of listening to Dailyn tell me that the two balls were uneven, we finally agreed that they were identical. I then let the child roll one ball into a snake, while the other ball remained as is. When asked which piece of Play-Doh had more dough, Chance explained that they were both the same and only the shape had changed. Jennifer was asked if the snake had more dough, or if the ball had more dough. She looked at the two pieces for a while before answering, “Ms, there ARE no snakes in Hawaii.” We then entered a short discussion of snakes, and then returned to the original question. Jennifer explained that she understood that pieces held the same amount of dough, though she was at a loss as to why. Dailyn looked to the snake, then to the ball, and said the snake had more dough because it was longer.
The final experiment consisted of using two rows of twelve poker chips. After laying them out, I asked the subjects which line had more chips. I also had to instruct each of them not to count the chips. All three children said the lines had the same amount of chips. Together, we then counted the rows to see that they all did in fact have the same number of chips. One of the rows was then spaced out, though keeping the same amount of chips per row. When asked which row had more, Dailyn immediately said the longer row did, “Because it takes up more space on the table.” While Jennifer assured me, they were the same “because you were just moving the pieces around.” The final subject, Chance, told me that there were the same number of chips as the first row because, “You’re just moving ‘em Ms. Why are you asking me these things anyway, don’t you know?”
All three children were extremely meticulous as to if the balls of dough were even, the water levels were the same, and were obsessively trying to count the poker chips. In each situation, the kids all wanted to be precise and exact in their deductions, and each took about five minutes to come to the conclusion that the two objects were the same or even.
While watching the change of the dough, the water and the chips, the kids whom answered incorrectly were very aware that the dough, water, and chips had not been altered in any way, (taken away or added). However they also could not understand how the amounts could remain the same if they now looked different. Dailyn presented that she didn’t understand what was happening and why shows that she has yet to learn intuitive thinking. Jennifer understood what was happening, but she was unable to put it into words and explain why. However, Chance understood what was happening in each situation and was able to explain why. The children were displaying Piaget’s Conservation Task. While Chance understood what was happening and why, Jennifer understood what was happening, but she didn’t know why it was happening. Dailyn on the other hand was fooled by the superficial changes and therefore has not mastered the Conservation task.
Outside of the FAMR class, these concepts can be applied to little children who do not understand things that are explained out to them or things that they can see before them. They see what is, they see what happens and they see the result, however they only remember the end result and not how things were before they changed or how they changed. Little boys and girls of a young age see things as they are, and accept what they see as truth. The idea that things change because the shape changes, that there is more water in one jar because it is taller, and the thought that there are more chips because they are stretched out over a larger area are only a few examples of how children see things. They take things at face value and interpret things as they appear, and not how they are.
