b1 ch4 narrative

Meer zoals dit

Why did some of the colonies put aside differences and create a new country -- Canada

door Erin W.

Week 3_Early Indicators

door Marco Bertolini

Humanism as a learning theory

door Luis Gutierrez

Television has a negative influence on human health and we need to fix this by using television in the correct way

door Qiuyang Fu

b1 ch4 narrative An investigation of Piagets theory into how children dev:- object permanence, - imitation- use of models as repr. of the real world

People, the social object

Imitation: foundation for social developement

Suggestive

Likely an inborn abilty to imitat which facilites social interaction

but: low response rates (large variation) making it difficult to see age related changes

good: experimental allows to manipulate conditions

good larger, and many differnt samples

Meltzofff + Moore: developmental progression

- 2-3 m vs. 6 weeks old. - > 18m they understood unsuccessful inteded beh

Meltzoff+Moore: 6w imitation and adaptation/learning even after delay

6 w: after delay of 24h were still abel to imitate tongue protrusion to the side. - Also adaptation shown to make it more similar – even though not see body part

Meltzof + Moore: early Imitation of a) new behaviour in b) blind body parts

6 infants aged 12- 21 days: were shown one of 4 gestures

judges: likelyhood of imitaion

but: small sample

but some error because "not applicable" was not possible

good: longitudinal observation in econatural circumstances. study / within participant study w. fewer variation

but: small sample, no generalization

Supported by Uzgiris and Hunt

> 12 m: imitation of new actions

>9m: imitation with body parts they can see

<6m no imitation of new behavior

Imitation not possible before 12 m: imitation: - needs memory, so only imitation for what is alredy known - only imitation of body parts that can be seen - true imitaion has a time lag (cogntion)

obsevation of own kids: <1 from no imitation to >12 deffered and new imitation

egocentrism

Counterevidence

Huges et al: 90% of 3-5 could hide the doll from the police

Suggesting that the P method placed to many cognitive demands on the children.

Piaget: 2-7 3 mountains task: inablity to show what another percptective woul look like

taken to suggest inablity to decenter

sensimotor stage

A - not B- error (robust finding)

Dicussion: Issue if memory or inhibition not completely resolved

Buttworth

fail even with see though cloth

egocentric and allocentric

if both codes are used both must be updated

Diamond

older children are better in longer delays

habituation takes over when trace is faded

Harrris

Memory trace fades when obect is hidden

Piaget

9m-12m looked under location A even though they saw object position was changed to B

sugg: egocentrism

Object permanence: objects continue to exist even when they are not seen - foundation for memory and cogntive. dev.

Hood and Villats

5m object and Lights out

Good: Controlled for baseline reaching behav

chilren make more movements in the direction of where the object was suggestive that they do not suppose that the object ceases to exist

Baillargon: imp:event

dev sequence 2,5 / 3,5

Object hidden behind occluder

3,5 integrate the hight and shape

2,5 any object hidden

6-8m Car and blocked road

suggestive of children having a core knowledge

P. task demanded a level of coordination they were not capable of

(a) the block continued to exist, (b) the car continued to exist (c) the car could not roll through the block

3, 5 same reaction

when they controlled for the differnt rotation times there was no difference

If the road is blocked and the car still appears (surprising event) chidren spend more time looking

5m Block and Bridge

Good: controlled for rotation time

b) Look longer at the impossible "going 180" through event vs. rotaion stopped at 120

sugg that they expact the objec to be permanent

a) habituated to 180 rotation

Bower: viol.expect

stopping train before

child gaze continues

2m train moving toward screen in was expected to reappear behind a block. But fail to inhibit stop of gaze

Piaget : children develop this through touching and handling. Thus for him understanding dependends on motor development.

Childern in sensimotor lack object perm: 9m: when an object (which they showed interest in before) is hidden under cloth the do not make any attempt to retrieve it

Piaget: The children are egocentric: for them object exist cease to exist when when they do not see them. As if they would bring the object into existance.

Discussion

Def. the konwledge that objects continue to exist even when they are not seen

foundation for memory and cognitive developement

egocentrism / empiricsm vs. nativist / core knowlege

Methods

any methods that do not require much coordination are good

gaze is good because no coordination required + viewing shows cogntive processes like attention or expectation

habituation

violation of expectation