Bad ideas in education

Great Debates
181

That appears to be part of the problem: it’s unclear what your point is.

Just spell it out in a couple clear sentences. Is your point that you think this conservation of “amount of stuff” is learned? Is that it? If so it’s obscured by the fact that you keep discussing differences in volume of water and “reality” when most adults realize we can’t sense or describe with planck length accuracy.

It’s unclear what you are getting at.

Do you mean that even if the volume before and after are within .000000001%, because they are unlikely to be exactly identical, that the experiment is flawed?

Exact volume really has nothing to do with this because humans aren’t that precise in measurement or language.

What is interesting is the intellectual process that eventually happens in which the person’s logic overrides their natural inclination to respond simply based on sensory input and instead model the world and actions they see in such a way as to accurately determine that “substantially” the same amount of “stuff” that used to be over there in that shape is now over here in this shape, but it is still considered the same “stuff”, as if it is being treated as an object or a unit within their model of the world.

See my previous post.

182

I don’t keep discussing that. Others, including you, keep bringing it back into the conversation. I have stated repeatedly, that in reality, the volume will be different. And I believe all of the people in this conversation knew that. And I didn’t bring it up in the first place, and never said it had anything to with my other point, which apparently, despite others continuously introducing that other irrelevant point, was clear enough for you to get. Perhaps you bothered to read my statements.

No. And I never said anything like that.

That’s true, and I stated that as well.

I find that interesting too. But no evidence presented in this thread shows that to be the case. I explained very clearly, that the first detailed citation of this experiment showed an experimenter prompting a child to answer a question based simply on sensory input. I contend that experiment is flawed, and has no scientific value in the context of this discussion. Further, if this is an experiment that was used in research to draw the conclusion you state above (and I have no idea if this research has been clearly represented in this thread), then all of the research is suspect.

Talking about other experiments that were in some way slightly different still proves nothing. There is nothing about these experiments that show whether the ability to comprehend the conservation of volume or weight as normally observed by people (‘observed’ in this case means the presumption of conservation even in cases where we know it does not exist) is innate or learned. The only way to do that (that I know of) would be to conduct a forbidden experiment on a child and deprive them of any possible way of learning this principle until they reached an age where the other children have achieved this.

Further, I have provided the perfect example that this comprehension is not likely to be innate since Archimedes, a reknowned scientist, is considered the first person to have been able to simple combine conservation of volume and conservation of weight as means of determining the purity of gold. I contend based on that, that it is unlikely for a child to innately understand even the simpler version used in the experiment. I do not offer that as proof, but it is a strong indication that the comprehension of those principles is learned and not innate. Further, as I stated, I’ve seen no evidence that the understanding of simple physical principles cannot be learned at an age where they are not supposed to have the innate ability. That calls into question the value of any conclusions regarding this experiment in regard to education.

I contend that this is something distinctly different from language. Nobody knows the answer to whether language is innate or learned, but there is strong evidence that there is an innate component. But you have not provided any nexus between language and understanding of physical principles, or the ability to use logic, or abstraction, in problem solving.

183

RaftPeople, if there is evidence that shows that children are incapable of applying logic at a certain developmental stage, that would be very interesting, but so far, irrelevant to this discussion. I have not contended that the natural ability of children to learn is based on logic at all.

184

Wait a moment, you’ve missed out a step.

The suggested situation is that the water observations are an indication of a problem. You then point out that, in fact, the volume of the water changes. But reality, in this instance, is not a direct problem - because we aren’t looking at whether the volume of the water changes, but rather, whether based upon the child’s observation the volume of the water changes.

Wouldn’t that then requires not simply the volume of the water being different, but that the difference in volume, as lost to temperature and those other suggested factors, be immediately visible by eye, when moved to a different container? And on that basis, isn’t it illogical to require visual inspection other than by metaphor, or to gain the needed knowledge for the purpose of further logical thought?

185

Correct, but if you read the prior 2 posts you;ll see that I’m not considering that a factor at all, and have done nothing but refute the specific claim that if you transfer water from 1 container to another the volume* in reality *will remain the same. In reality, that is not true, and that claim was irrelevant to the discussion, and you have once again brought it up.

What you are saying seems largely to agree with my contention that the comprehension of the principle of conservation of volume in liquids is learned.

186

But you made the point that the experimenter had cued the child to use their visual senses to make a conclusion. Given that that would be illogical, as well as contrary to the experimenter’s own childhood experience, why assume that the experimenter would do that, since a more likely explanation is that visual inspection is simply to gather the information necessary to then apply logical thought? The point relies on observation either way, not simply in one case.

187

Blast! I wrote this at 1pm today, but DSL keeps going out, so I’ll post it now, while I can.

1-- I never mentioned clay; other posters did. I stated that Piaget’s original investigations have been both repeated by others and performed with a variety of new methodologies. All show consistent results.

2-- The “reality” is that the water maintains its volume to such an extent that extremely sensitive instrumentation would be required to measure the difference. When I measure out a cup and a half of water for a recipe then pour it into the mixing bowl, certainly some infinitesimal amount of it remains behind in the measuring cup due to the surface tension of water. However, my recipe does not require me to measure out " 1 1/2 cups plus an infinitesimal amount" in order to be successful. If you want to call this an “observationally derived reality” or something, knock yourself out. But a child at an earlier developmental stage would not understand that the water in the measuring cup did not change in volume (by more than some irrelevant number of molecules) when it was poured into the larger mixing bowl.

3-- You will not change the fact that this occurs in all children (or virtually all—I don’t want to derail this with an objection that there may be some incredibly rare exceptional individual somewhere) at the same (again, virtually the same, and quite predictable) age. This is not a learning phenomenon, it is a developmental one. It can be awakened, or illuminated, and practiced for general applicability, at the requisite stage of development. As LHOD said:

Oh and BTW, I do know the origin of “in the weeds”. I was merely suggesting that your apparent inability to comprehend a fairly simple and otherwise uncontroversial concept in child development demonstrated that you were overwhelmed and falling behind in this thread. I was trying to remain civil and not be insulting. The alternative, suggesting that you are deliberately refusing to accept a fairly simple and otherwise uncontroversial concept in child development, would be improper in this forum.

188

TriPolar, If you have a point about volume, be a man, make the point and make it crystal clear.

If you can’t answer this next question because I’ve worded something in a way that you feel doesn’t represent your position, then provide enough clear detail to let us know what exactly you are saying about the difference in volume in that experiment.
Do you think the volume of the water changes to such an extent that we as humans can’t just say they are the “same” knowing that it means “substantially the same”?

189

Good gravy, how many times to I have to repeat it, in reality the volume of water is not the same. The intent of the question isn’t even about reality, and reality is irrelevant to the question.

What is the problem you have with this? Do you believe it is the same?

And further, at no time did I claim that the reality of whether the volume changes had anything to do with that experiment. Someone else did.

190

Sorry Canny, my mistake. I apologize. I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.

191

So, to be clear:

  1. You are in agreement that the volume of water in that experiment can reasonably be considered “the same” from the perspective of human sensing and describing capabilities - right?

  2. Because it can be reasonably considered the “same”, the experiment setup is a reasonable way to determine whether a child has the ability (whether through learning or innate abilities) at that point in time to correctly account for conservation of “stuff” despite a change in shape - right?

192

Yes, and at no time did I contend otherwise. I contend the experiment cannot distinquish whether the ability is innate or learned. Do you have any evidence or any logical reason to believe otherwise?

193

You can repeat it as often as you like, but it’s wrong, because we accept certain subtle variations in quantity and volume and still consider things to be the same. When I ask if two cars are traveling at the same speed, if one’s traveling at 55 mph and the other is traveling at 54.9 mph, answering that they’re traveling at different speeds is, for almost all purposes, ridiculously pedantic. And in the experiment linked, the initial difference between the volumes of the two containers of water is going to be far greater than the difference between the volume of water when it’s poured from one glass to the other.

In other words, you’re treating the word “same” as if it’s a mathematically precise word. But that’s not how it’s used. For the purposes of the experiment in the video, and for the purposes of virtually every time the volume of a liquid is discussed outside of highly technical circles, a variation of less than 1% is going to lead to a conclusion that the volumes are the same.

Your suggestion that kids are responding appropriately to the parameters of the experiment and are answering the question they believe the researcher asked is easily checked. I’ve checked it. Here’s how:

-I gave kids a short wide flask with the 30 Ml line marked. I gave them a tall thin flask with the 30 Ml line marked. I asked them to fill the tall thin glass to the 30 Ml line, and I explained what that line meant. I showed them the other flask, told them that in a minute I’d ask them to pour the water from the tall flask into the short flask, and I asked them to predict whether there would be more than 30 ml, less than 30 ml, or exactly 30 ml, reminding them that the line on the short flask marked the 30 ml line.

EVERY SINGLE CHILD in my class predicted that there would be less than 30 Ml of water.

But here’s the kicker: when they did the experiment, they were astonished and delighted to see that there was exactly (oh, Jesus Christ, okay, approximately) 30 ml of water in the short wide flask. Not a one of them said, “Oh, that’s what you’re asking–of COURSE there’s the same amount of water!”

We used the experiment to launch into a discussion of liquids, making the point that liquids change shape to fit their container, but that they didn’t change their volume (soon after the thermodynamic police arrested me for pissing on their pedantry, but that’s another story). By activating their schema (more eduspeak, so sorry so sorry) and then disrupting their schema, I gave them the chance to figure out some fundamental properties of liquids.

The reason this experiment was so amazing to them is that the kids were all pre-operational: they didn’t get the principle of conservation. When they saw it demonstrated, it blew their minds, and when they pieced their minds back together, they pieced them back differently.

And that’s learning.

194

Left Hand, I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that in reality, the water will not maintain the volume. I did not contend that anybody would think the question meant anything other than what you have stated. One after another people have come back to claim that I am wrong about the statement that the water will not maintain the volune in reality, and you are attempting to do it again, and I am not wrong. This has never had anything to do with whatever this test is supposed to show. But so far, it shows nothing. You and others have claimed to have expertise on this subject, but nobody has presented a case that this experiment demonstrates whether or not children have an innate ability to understand the principle of the conservation of volume. I’ll keep repeating this to everyone who questions my understanding of this experiment.

And once again, you have helped demonstrate my point. You were able to tell the children about the principle, and they understood it. They did not have to wait until some later developmental stage.

Now, do you have any evidence that it requires an advanced development stage, or an innate ability to comprehend the principle (you’ve already provided evidence that it doesn’t)? Do you have any evidence that children will innately comprehend this principle at a later stage of development? And if you don’t think that this is not an innate ability dependent on a developmental stage, then what is your argument with me about? I contend that young children can learn this principle and if they know it at a later point in life, it’s because they have learned it along the way. And if they don’t know it at the age they start school, it is because they have not had the opportunity to learn it.

And please tell me why you think why a 5 year old would assume that they should not believe their eyes when a teacher shows them something?

195

Just what is merit pay based on, anyway? How the students are doing? If so, it’s already screwed up, since, as I already pointed out in post #105, the teacher is not the only factor in a student’s success or failure.

I would like to know how merit pay is figured, though. I am genuinely curious.

196

…which means the point is totally irrelevant–which is part of why I’m pretty sure that you’ve spent part of this time arguing in bad faith.

Sure, and you’re the boy fucking genius who sees something that no child developmental psychologist has ever seen before, we get that. Publish your damn findings–or explain, perhaps, why you’re able to see straight through a supposed principle that’s been retested, verified, and written about countless times. Maybe, just maybe, the fault isn’t with everyone else in the world? Maybe–there’s just the eensiest possibility–you’re misunderstanding what folks are talking about?

Once again, that’s because I teach kids at the cusp of understanding. Show this same experiment to high-schoolers, and they’ll text their boyfriend instead of watching the experiment, because they already understand it. Show this same experiment to five-year-olds, and they’ll be wide-eyed in confusion, because they’re not yet able to understand it. Show it to seven- and eight-year-olds, and they won’t intuitively understand it, but they can get it when they demonstrate it themselves, and then they can use this amazing experience to learn some things both about the nature of science and about the properties of liquid.

Don’t put words in my mouth, you’re terrible at it.

197

I am not arguing in bad faith. I did not claim the point was relevant. I have answered everyone who contends that I am wrong about the immutability of the volume of water accurately and precisely. I did not bring this up once.

I would be tempted to publish my findings if I believed that this Piaget guy was making the claims that you and others are making. You still have not supplied a shred of evidence that any conclusions can be drawn from this experiment, other than 5 year olds do not know about the principle of conservation of volume. Again, since you claim to have the expertise on this subject, how does the experiment show anything else?

I would also like to know if you think the video posted where the experimenter cued the child to answer based on how the water looked was a valid experiment for the point you claim is true.

That’s nice, but I don’t expect high-schoolers, 7 and 8 year olds, and 5 year olds to react to situations the same way. Do you? I’m not clear what you’ve been arguing in this regard. Are you saying that you use this experiment on 7 and 8 year olds, they don’t innately understand the principle, but once shown the principle they can apply it? And are you saying you have tried the same with 5 year olds and they are not able to apply it? I’m not arguing with you there, your statements haven’t been clear on the age group that you have experience with.

I apologize, I did not intend to put words in your mouth, but that is how I worded the question. I will rephrase it:

Under the circumstances of the experiment, do you believe a 5 year old would assume a teacher is asking them to disbelieve their own eyes when answering.

198

I’ve not tried the experiment on 5-year-olds, but I don’t think they’d be able to do it successfully–or at least they wouldn’t be able to understand the results in the way my students were able to do. They lack the ability to mentally manipulate abstract principles (units of measurement) and to apply those principles to concrete phenomena (liquid poured between glasses). They’re entirely sensory in their understanding of the world.

What the experiment shows is that kids at a certain point are able to hold abstract ideas in their head and apply those abstract ideas to the world. When an older kid says that the final glass contains the same amount of water as the other glass, they say that because they’re capable of reasoning through the events they’ve just witnessed and applying general principles to the events to draw a conclusion (“well, I just watched all the water go into the third glass from the second glass, and I know the second glass had the same amount of water as the first glass, so the third glass must have the same amount of water as the first glass, even though it doesn’t look like it.”)

A younger child can’t do that: they lack the logical and abstract apparatus to think through those steps. Their brains are busy doing other necessary tasks at that age.

199

Thank you for presenting a rational argument. I don’t generally disagree with your conclusions. However, I do not see how the particular conclusion regarding the differences between 5 year olds and 7 year olds can be drawn from that experiment. I have never contended that the younger children would use logic to answer such a question.

Could you also tell me what you think about the video where the experimenter cues the child twice to look at the container and answer whether the volume changes? I think that particular experiment is useless for the purpose of determining anything about a child’s capacity to think because of the cues. I would find any 5 year old who says the volume remains the same to be remarkable, under those circumstances. I think even a 5 year old who had had the explanation provided to them would likely respond to the cues, not the knowledge they had.

200

I think it’s telling that an 8-year-old responded to the prompts differently from the 5-year-old: I don’t think the word “look” was intentionally or unintentionally deceitful. However, it’d be trivial to try it out on a kid without using that word, if you think it’s significant.