1
(a)
|
From
the study on conservation by Samuel & Bryant, outline the main
differences between the children’s responses to the “one
question condition”, compared to the “two question condition”
(Piaget’s original design).
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Suggest
one reason for this
difference.
|
[2]
|
|
1996
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
The
study by Samuel & Bryant is usually described as a criticism of
Piaget’s explanation of cognitive development.
However, the results also contain some support for Piaget.
From the results of the study,
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Give
one piece of evidence
that challenges Piaget
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Give
one piece of evidence
that supports Piaget.
|
[2]
|
|
1997
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
From
the study by Samuel & Bryant on conservation, identify two
factors that increase the chance of a child giving the correct
answer in the conservation experiments.
For each factor, explain why
it increases the chance of a child giving a correct answer.
|
[4]
|
|
1999
|
|
|
|
|
4
(a)
|
How
did Samuel and Bryant test for conservation in the children?
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Suggest
two factors that improved the performance of the child at the
conservation tasks
|
[2]
|
|
Sample 2000
|
|
|
|
|
5
(a)
|
In
the study by Samuel and Bryant on conservation, in the ‘one
question condition’ children are asked a question about number,
mass or volume, only after they have seen the substance changed in
front of them. Identify
the other two conditions of this experiment
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
In
addition to these conditions, two other factors affected the
children’s ability to conserve.
Identify both of these factors
|
[2]
|
|
June 2001
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
The
study by Samuel and Bryant looks at cognitive development.
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Describe
one way in which the results show cognitive development has taken
place.
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Suggest
one problem that psychologists face when studying development
|
[2]
|
|
June 2001
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Samuel
And Bryant (conservation) raise doubts about the validity of the
measures Piaget used to test the children's ability to conserve.
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Describe
one difference between the way Piaget tested conservation and
the way Samuel and Bryant tested conservation.
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Outline
one way in which the validity of any measure can be tested.
|
[2]
|
|
May
2002
|
|
|
|
|
8
(a)
|
From Samuel and Bryant's study into
conservation outline one finding which supports Piaget's
theory of cognitive development.
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
From the same study, outline one finding which challenges
Piaget's theory of cognitive development.
|
[2]
|
|
January 2003
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
From the study by Samuel and Bryant on
conservation:
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Briefly describe the standard (two
question) procedure.
|
[2]
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Suggest what can be learned from this
procedure that is useful to psychologists when they interview
children.
|
[2]
|
|
January 2003
|
|
10
|
Outline two conclusions that can be
drawn from the results of Samuel and Bryant's study on conservation.
|
[4]
|
|
May 2003
|
|
11 |
From Samuel and Bryant's study on
conservation: |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
give one piece of evidence that
supports Piaget's claims about children's ability to conserve;
|
[2] |
(b) |
give one piece of evidence that
challenges Piaget's claims. |
[2] |
|
January 2004
|
|
12 |
From the Samuel and Bryant study on conservation, outline one
of the conservation tasks. |
[2] |
|
May 2004
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
Outline one finding about the
children's ability to conserve in the study by Samuel and Bryant. |
[2] |
|
May 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
The study by Samuel and Bryant on
conservation highlights a criticism of Piaget's original method of
testing. Outline this criticism. |
[4] |
|
January 2006
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
In the study by Samuel and Bryant on conservation they used liquid,
plasticine and counters in the conservation experiments.
Outline one effect these materials had on the number of errors
children made |
[2] |
|
May 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
From the study by Samuel and Bryant on conservation:
(a) identify
two of the independent variables;
(b) outline one way in which the study may not have been valid. |
[2]
[2] |
|
January 2007
|
|
|
|
|