C H I L D

D E V E L O P M E N T
PIAGET –
EXPE R I MEN TS TO H I GH LI GH T
DE VE LO PMENTA L CH ANGE S
 Experiment 1: Invisible Displacement

Materials:
• 3 cups
• 1 small object

Procedure:
1. Designate one person as the experimenter,
the others are the participants.
2. The experimenter is to turn all three cups
upside down on the table
3. Hide the item underneath one of the cups,
show the participants as you do this
4. Mix around the three cups without lifting
them off the table and allow the participants
to guess which cup the item is under
5. Change roles and attempt again.

Turn over for the explanation of this experiment…

Experiment 1: Invisible Displacement

Explanation:
• This experiment tests a child's skills in understanding object permanence
• Piaget studied object permanence by observing infants' reactions when a
favourite object or toy was presented and then was covered with a
blanket or removed from sight.
• Object permanence is one of the earliest methods for evaluating working
memory.
• Piaget assumed that the child could only search for a hidden toy if s/he
had a mental representation of it.
• Children tend to develop an understanding of object permanence around
8 months old
 Experiment 2: Three Mountains
Materials:
• Blank paper
• Pencil
• Doll/stuffed animal
• 3D scene (already set up)
Procedure:
1. Place the doll/animal on the opposite side of
the desk to where your group is standing, it
should be facing the scene.
2. Using the provided paper and pencils, draw
what the doll/animal would be seeing from
their perspective.
3. Check your answer by moving to see the
dolls/animals viewpoint
4. Change the location of the toy and start again

Turn over for the explanation of this experiment…

Experiment 2: Three Mountains

Explanation:
• This task is used to assess visual perspective taking in children. A doll is
placed at various locations around a three-dimensional display of three
mountains, and children must indicate how the doll sees the display.
• The Three Mountain Problem was devised by Piaget to test whether a
child's thinking was egocentric, which was also a helpful indicator of
whether the child was in the preoperational stage or the concrete
operational stage of cognitive development.
• Egocentric children assume that other people will see the same view of
the three mountains as they do.
• According to Piaget, at age 7, thinking is no longer egocentric, as the child
can see more than their own point of view
 Experiment 3: Conservation

Materials:
• Various beakers/flasks of different sizes,
filled with water
• Measuring cylinders
Procedure:
1. Each flask is filled with a volume of liquid.
2. Without using the measuring cylinders,
determine which flask/beaker has the
largest volume of water, and which has
the least.
3. Use the measuring cylinders to check your
answers. Do this one at a time. Once
measured, pour the water back into the
original container ready for the next
group.
Turn over for the explanation of this experiment…
Experiment 3: Conservation

Explanation:
• This task is to test a child's ability to see how some items remain the same in some
ways, even as you change something about them, for instance, their shape.
• You performed a slightly more complex task compared to what the children were
asked to do as part of this experiment. In the original, children were shown two
identical glasses with two identical volumes of liquid. The experimenter poured one
of the glasses of liquid into a glass with a different shape. The children were then
asked which one had more liquid, or if they were equal. If they identified that the
volumes were equal, they have satisfied the concept of conservation.
• Other forms of this experiment were used. See the extra diagram provided on your
table.
• Under Piaget's theory, conservation, or logical thinking, should be apparent during
the concrete operational stage and this occurs between the ages of seven and eleven
 Materials:
Experiment 4: Pendulum
Procedure:
Turn over for the explanation of this experiment…
• 3 sets of slotted masses
• String of different lengths with loops in the ends
• Retort stand
1. The aim of this experiment is to compare the motions of
longer and shorter strings, with lighter and heavier
weights attached. This is in order to determine the
influence of the weight, string length and dropping height
on the time it takes for a pendulum to swing back and
forth
2. Before starting, you need to discuss your plan for this
experiment. What are you going to test first and compare?
Different weights with the same string length? Same
weight with different string lengths? Different dropping
heights? etc
3. Make predictions as a group, which one will swing more?
4. When ready, put your experiment together and hook it
onto the retort stand.
5. Drop your pendulum from a reasonable height and
observe the motion, and how often it swings.
6. Repeat your experiment, testing another aspect.
7. Overall, which factor was most important in determining
the speed of swing of the pendulum?
8. Reset the task for the next group
Experiment 4: Pendulum

Explanation:
• The participant is asked to work out what governs the speed of an object
swinging on a piece of string.
• It was used to determine if children could isolate and test variables one at
a time to experimentally test an idea (also called formal operational
thinking).
• Children who struggled with this experiment were found to change more
than one variable at a time whilst running the pendulum experiment and
as such produce the incorrect answer that it is the mass at the end of the
string that influences the speed of the pendulum. It’s all about variable
testing!
• This development begins approximately age 12 and lasts into adutlhood
Stage Age/Key Defining characterisitics Relatd Experiment
Sensorimotor Birth to 2 years Experiment 1: Invisible Displacement
Develop object permanence by 8 months. Up until then, Now you see it, now you don’t!
does not realise an object continues to exist if hidden.
Pre-Operational 2 to 7 years Experiment 2: Three Mountains Task
Egocentric – perceives world from own standpoint. So no Demonstration of egocentrism, Trying to
logical thinking, no process of reversal re ‘size’. imagine what the doll see’s – cannot. Until
Animism – inanimate objects are ‘alive’ – have human about 6 years old children are egocentric,
feelings and intentions so cannot understand that another person
Symbolic – Make believe – play and learn, fantasy can hold a different visual perspective from
Centration – Can only focus on one aspect of a task their own.
Seriation – Can arrange objects in graduated order.
Concrete 7 to 11 years Experiment 3: Various Conservation
Operational Can carry out logical thinking – key achievement is the Activities
ability to understand conservation. However, no abstract Understands that an object does not
thinking - working with concrete materials – has ability to change it’s mass, weight, volume or area
group and seriate (order). simply because it changes shape.
Formal 11 years and up Experiment 4: Pendulum Experiment
Operational Abstract thinking (opposite of concrete) so don’t need to Varied in length of string, weight, different
see or handle objects in order to reason about them. push force, and heights on the rate of
Also, logical thinking. swing. Length of string determines how
quickly the pendulum swings.
 Criticism’s

• Lev Vygotsky – believed social interactions especially our sociocultural context

predominantly affects our cognitive growth.
• Children's minds develop through their interactions with others, particularly more competent
peers and adults.
• Researchers criticised Piaget suggesting his tasks did not always measure what he
thought they measured (research methods), leading to an underestimation of
young minds:
• Using unfamiliar materials and situations not common to young children (Hughes in
Donaldson, 1978, policeman task makes sense to children whereas 3 mountains abstract,
children can take another person’s perspective, no longer egocentric)
• Using language that breaks conversational rules (Siegal, 1991, questioning)
• Failing to distinguish between competence and performance (It is possible to answer a
question correctly, but provide a different answer to please the examiner, also children are
capable of doing the reasoning, but are unable to explain.
• Using tasks that measured education rather than development (Seagrim & Lendon 1980,
Piaget – Underestimated Young Children