The development core studies: the classic study Piaget (1952) on the conservation of number, and the contemporary study Blackwell et al. (2007) on mindset and mathematics achievement.

What this dot point is asking

OCR wants you to know the two development core studies. The classic study is Piaget (1952), the conservation of number task that showed young children cannot conserve. The contemporary study is Blackwell et al. (2007), which found a growth mindset predicted and improved maths achievement. For each you need the aim, method, results, conclusions and an evaluation.

Piaget (1952): the classic study

Aim

To investigate at what age children can conserve number, that is, understand that the number of objects does not change when they are simply rearranged.

Method

A laboratory-style task with individual children. Piaget showed a child two equal rows of counters, lined up one to one, and the child agreed they had the same number. Then, while the child watched, Piaget spread out one row so it looked longer, without adding or removing any counters. He then asked again whether the rows had the same number or whether one had more.

Results

Younger children (in the pre-operational stage, about 2 to 7) typically said the longer, spread-out row had more. Older children (concrete operational, about 7 and over) correctly said the rows were still equal.

Conclusion

Young children cannot conserve number: they judge by appearance (the longer row) rather than logic. The ability to conserve develops in the concrete operational stage, supporting Piaget's stage theory.

Blackwell et al. (2007): the contemporary study

Aim

To find out whether students' mindset (fixed or growth) affects their maths grades over time, and whether teaching a growth mindset improves achievement.

Method

The study had two parts. In a longitudinal part, the researchers measured the mindset of adolescents entering junior high school and tracked their maths grades over two years. In an intervention part, one group of students was taught about the growth mindset (that the brain can grow with effort) plus study skills, while a control group was taught only study skills; their later motivation and grades were compared.

Results

Students with a growth mindset showed rising maths grades, while those with a fixed mindset showed flat or declining grades. In the intervention, the group taught a growth mindset showed improved motivation and grades compared with the control group.

Conclusion

Holding, and being taught, a growth mindset improves achievement, supporting Dweck's mindset theory in learning and the growth mindset.

Evaluating the two studies

Piaget (1952) has the strength of a standardised, replicable task and was hugely influential in education. Its weaknesses are that the task may have confused young children (repeating the question and the obvious transformation can make children think they should change their answer), so it may underestimate their ability, and the samples were small. Blackwell et al. (2007) has the strengths of a longitudinal design and real-world measures (actual grades) plus an intervention that suggests cause. Its weaknesses are that mindset is measured by self-report (which can be unreliable), effects can be modest, and the results come from a specific group of students, so they may not generalise to all settings. Together they show development depends both on a child's stage and on the beliefs that shape their effort.

Try this

Q1. What ability did Piaget (1952) test with the rows of counters? [1 mark]

• Cue. Conservation of number.

Q2. What did Blackwell et al. (2007) find about students with a growth mindset? [2 marks]

• Cue. Their maths grades rose over time, and teaching a growth mindset improved grades versus a control group.

Q3. Give one weakness of Piaget's conservation study. [2 marks]

• Cue. The task may have confused young children (so it underestimates ability), or the sample was small.