Case of Study

Name: Carlos Alexander Anaya

Age: 5 years old

School: Kindergarten

Relationship: Nephew

Attention spam:  5 + 1 = 6

 Case of Study

The objective of this blog is to contrast some of the theories studied in class.  This study focused in  recreate some experiments that will show evidence about knowledge and abilities of children. In order to have enough data to contrast what these theories say it is necessary to develop a study. Moreover, this study consisted in observed a child any age during 8 days and see how this child behaved, what he or she could do, and how he or she interacted with other people. This study focused on a 5 year old child named Carlos. He goes to kindergarten, and this is his second year at school. Carlos was exposed to experiments that some theorists applied to provide information and identify what children can do at certain age and consequently classify their stage. 

I performed the experiments with Carlos, and this helped me get information about what Carlos was able to do, and how he behaved at the time to perform the activities. Moreover, the results of the experiments will help me identify if the results were similar with the stages that theorist proposed or if there are some changes in the results. Piaget created the cognitive stages of child development that explained that children learn by doing. This theory focuses on observe, analyze, and reasoning in order to explain how children develop their brains. Carlos is the boy that I observe and socialized with. According to his age he is in the preoperational stage (3 to 7). The study will show some other evidence that have relation with some other theories.

First Experiment: 

The objective of this experiment is show if the child can think logically or if he can reasoning, and according to piaget he is in the stage in which children start to think  but not in a logical way.The materials that I used were three glasses and I followed some steps in order to get the information. First, I presented to Carlos the experiment of two glasses full of colored water that had the same size with the same amount water. Then I asked him if the glasses had the same amount of water having the correct answer which was that they had exactly the same amount of liquid. Then, I had an extra glass that was shorter and I pour the colored water of one of the glasses that I presented to him before.Finally, when I had the two recipients with water again I asked him which contained more water, and he answer me that the higher glass more water which was not correct. 

 Result:

5 years old boy like Carlos is not able to answer correctly to this experiment because he did not take into account two things at the same time like height and width. He explained that one of the glasses had more water making the judgment just for the size of the glasses because one of them seemed shorter than the other. I conclude that Carlos did not answer correctly because he is in the preoperational stage which means that he is not able to think in a logical way just like piaget said. The result of this experiment show the preoperational stage of Piaget’s theory.

                                  Second Experiment:

This second experiment has as a purpose demonstrate if the child can analyze and reasoning. The experiment consisted in present to the child two little bags with the same amount of candies. Then I asked to Carlos if the two bags had the same amount of candies he said that the two bags had the same amount of candies. After that I moved the cadies from the bag to a white plate and asked him again if there were the same amount of water in the bag and in the plate. Carlos answer that the plate had more candies then the bags. I had the conclusion that Carlos thought that in the plate there were more candies because he saw the pile of candies there, and he did not reasoning that there were the same amount than before.

Result:

Carlos could not answer great since he is developing his reasoning and cannot use it in this type of experiments that require to analyze and reasoning. My conclusion was that when Carlos reach the concrete operational stage he will provided the correct answer because he will have his brain develop enough to analyze and make conclusions.

Third experiment:

Vygotsky claimed that children learned because of the environment in which they live. Also they learned by socializing with other people specially I they are children of his same age. The learning of a child according to Vygotsky needs to be in a context that is attractive for them. I observed to Carlos and he likes to get involved with people. He likes to play and create stories about situations that he can solve, with the help of others children. The learning is more constructive when is accompanied with games, song, or pictures.

Conclusion

The theories that were implied in my study were the cognitivist and the social interaction theory of Vygotsky. The experiment showed that child development might vary depend on the child. My first experiment related to cognitivism matches with what Piaget observed that I child at that age do not think logically. Piaget’s theory focuses on the development of the brain. He said that children learn by their experiences.  Moreover, the social aspect seems to be really important in our society because children learn faster when the learning is attractive and involves children to socialize and be part of the learning. Vygotsky observed that the culture is another important factor in the learning of a child. These theories were reflected in the results of the experiments that I presented in my case of study.