Hi all-
I'll not copy John Clement's posting, but I have difficulty
harmonizing his conclusions with data presented in Case and Edelstein,
Ed., <The New Structuralizm in Cognitive Deevelopment> (Karger 1993).
In a chapter discussing reactions to Piaget theory, Case, Okamoto,
Henderson and MCKeough write:
_________________________________________________________________
In support of this view [one different from Piaget's], a variety
of experimental data were gathered. In the present context, the
most important were those showing (a) insignificant correlations between
developmental tests that Piaget had claimed tapped the same underlying
logical structure; {b} substantial asynchrony in the rate of development
of concepts that Piaget had claimed depend on the same underlying
structure; (c)strong training effects on logical tasks such as
conservation, which were supposedly dependent on the gradual emergence of
a general developmental structure; and (d) transfer from such training to
other tasks having the same conceptual content (e.g., different forms of
conservation), but not to other concepts that were supposeed to depend on
the same underlying stucture (e.g., classification or class inclusion).
______________________________________________________________________
My impression is that these latter authors are writing much later
than Karplus and Lawson and were aware of K&L's work (although not cited
in this volume). The book includes table showing experimantal results.
Regards,
Jack
--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l