PIAGET AND GESELL:

A COMPARISON OF BEHAVIORAL AGE

AND COGNITIVE ABILITY

Allie CohillAnnie Kaplan

PIAGET 1896-1980 Switzerland Swiss Developmental Psychologist and

Philosopher Natural Sciences Ph. D University of

Neuchatel Worked at University of Zurich, developed

interest for psychoanalysis Studied cognitive development

Became the theory of cognitive development Strongly interested in the development of

knowledge, specifically with the child

PIAGET TERMS Schema

Each child had knowledge, acquired through experiences and interactions, organized through groupings

Pre-operational StageTypically ages 2-7The beginning of thinking in symbols, but

still unsystematic and illogical. The ability to mentally represent what has been absorbed on the level of action 

PIAGET TERMS Concrete Operational Stage

Typically ages 7-11 Thinking becomes more organized logically on a

mental plane Conservation occurs at this stage 

Conservation The ability to transform reality by means of

internalized actions which are grouped into coherent, reversible systems. 

A psychological indication of the completion of an operatory structure. Requires the ability to see multiple aspects of a problem

 conservation of substance (age 7-8) conservation of weight (age 9-10) conservation of volume (age 11-12) 

Arnold Gesell Completed Ph.D in psychology at Clark

U Yale Medical Degree Founded clinic at Yale Established Gesell Institute of Child

Development in New Haven, CT 1950 Set out to provide a standard in which

people could recognize typical and not ordinary child patterns in behavior

GESELL TERMS Maturation

The process by which development is governed by intrinsic factors--principally the genes, which determine the sequence, timing, and form of emerging action-patterns

School readinessPoint in the biological development of the

child in which he or she is behaviorally mature enough to learn in a school environment and accomplish school age tasks.

Occurs usually at age 5 or 6Complex construct

GESELL TERMS Incomplete Man Test

 Children are given a drawing of a stick figure which is incomplete and they are asked to draw the missing parts.

The open ended nature of this task allows the children to demonstrate many different aspects of their personality and development, especially their ability to observe and copy from a picture.

HYPOTHESIS If students are at the normative

behavioral age according to the incomplete man test by Gesell, they will also not be able to complete Piaget Conservation tasks.

OUR STUDY Small North Texas Catholic School

7 kindergarteners, 5 boys, 2 girls

Study was conducted in school library

Incomplete Man Test was given to the students while sitting at one main table

Students were taken aside individually to complete conservation task

GESELL’S ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE MAN TEST RESULTS

Hair inclusion of hair is normative (Age 5.5) Hair too long (until age 5.5)  Too few hairs (until age 9)  Better stroke developed, majority achieve good length of

hair (Age 7) Most placement of hair accurately (Age 9) Only 6% of girls, 12% of boys, reproduce the number

correctly (Age 10) Eyes

One fourth of children make a pupil (Age 5.5)  Eyes match in size and placement, though horizontal

placement may not be as accurate (Age 6)  Pupil normative (Age 9)

ANALYSIS Neck Area

Simple completion of the body line (Age 4.5-5)

Instead of a simple extension of the body line, as earlier, some now make a slanted combination of neck and body line. Neck area tends to consist of a two-part straight neck and body line. (Ages 5.5)

 Struggle to make the bow with difficulty (Ages 5.5-6)

 Bow added to the earlier body line (Age 7) 

“The ages of 4 through 6 emphasize the gradual improvement of the neck area: first the extension of the body line to meet the knot in the given bow, then the addition of the neck, and then the struggle with the bow. At this time, when some arm and fingers, leg and foot, hair, ear, and eyes can be pretty well taken for granted, how the child handles the neck area can be an examiner’s best clue as to how far that child has developed.” (Ilg, Ames, etc, 98)

ANALYSIS

Arm Arm and leg are becoming shorter in some (age 5)

Arms are moving upward and point upward (age 5.5)

Leg Leg is good length (age 6)

RESULTS

Student 7 (Age 6) HairDoes not make anyEyesDoes not make anyEarMakes ear

-Placement: correct

-Size: Too small Shape: Some

indent but not correct

Neck Area Makes neck areaBody line and

neck only

Arm Placement: MiddleDirection: UpLength: CorrectFingers: Correct

Leg Makes leg placement: Too farDirection: CorrectLength: Too shortFoot: Good length

Student 2 (Age 6) HairMakes hairNumber: too fewEyesDoes not make anyEarMakes ear

-Placement: too high

-Size: Too smallShape: poor

Neck Area Makes neck areaBody line NeckBow

Arm Placement: Just right

Direction: UpLength: too longFingers: correct

Leg Makes leg placement: Too nearDirection: CorrectLength: Too shortFoot: up too much

Student 3 (Age 5) HairMakes hairNumber: too fewEyesMakes eyesPlacement: too high/unevenEarMakes ear

-Placement: correct-Size: Too bigShape: poor

Neck Area Makes neck areaBody line

Arm Placement: upper thirdDirection: UpLength: correctFingers: correct

Leg Makes leg placement: Too nearDirection: CorrectLength: Too shortFoot: up too much

CONSERVATION OF NUMBER According to Piaget

Before conservation of number, children link numerical evaluation with the spatial arrangement of the elements

8 penniespennies close togetherpennies spread apart Ask if there is the same amount in each row

CONSERVATION OF NUMBER

CONSERVATION OF VOLUME According to Piaget

Before conservation of volume, the pouring of the water from one cup to another is not conceived as a reversible movement from one state to another, changing the form but leaving the quantity constant

CONSERVATION OF VOLUME

RESULTS Hypothesis confirmed

Most students did not have the behavioral characteristics to be labeled as ready in the incomplete man test

All students except one could not conserve Behavioral and cognitive development is

related

Student 7 Able to conserve number Unable to conserve volume Incomplete man test was below average

LIMITATIONS Could have encouraged children more

Ask if they were missing any parts of the stick figure

Shortened the children’s gym class, were very anxious and wanted to finish quickly

More students Find out age per month More readiness tests

Useful is assessing child in various aspects

Should we look again at the curriculum for the age levels and ask whether it expects students to have the ability to conserve?

Does the curriculum match cognitive ability?

Maybe we should do a better job of analyzing cognitive abilities in order to better teach them

Children may not be prepared for a first grade curriculum

Our study stimulated some questions for one to think about:

Would a child learn how to conserve if they had never been asked?

Would children be able to develop logical skills if they had not been asked?Stimulation has to be there

Piaget criticized about Americans trying to speed things upAre we not stimulating children enough at

younger ages?Or are we forcing complex thinking on

children when they are not ready?

PiagetThe child must be independently doing

things and learningNot all about demonstrationChild works alone until the “aha!” moment

with conservation Child must be cognitively developed to

a point for this moment to happen Gesell

Believed one had to wait until the child’s human genetic processes have occurred in that child

FINAL THOUGHTS

WHAT CAN THESE CHILDREN DO? Do not want to shortchange a child

Also want to challenge a child

Important to understand there is a uniqueness in their rate of learning and development

Piaget and Gesell focused on different aspects of child development Both useful in developing a correct curriculum for a

child and helping them grow