Content deleted Content added
InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) m →Problems: No need for...a dramatic pause. |
InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) m →Problems: His being Piaget's. |
||
Line 208:
Piaget's research relied on very small [[Sample (statistics)|samples]] that were not [[selection bias|randomly selected]]. His book ''The Origins of Intelligence in Children'' was based on the study of just his own three children.<ref name="Hopkins 2011">{{cite journal |title=The Enduring Influence of Jean Piaget |journal=APS Observer |year=2011 |last=Hopkins |first=J.R. |volume=24 |issue=10}}</ref> This means that it is difficult to generalize his findings to the broader population. He interacted closely with his research subjects and did not follow a set script, meaning that experimental conditions may not have been exactly the same from participant to participant, introducing issues of consistency.
As Piaget worked in the era before widespread use of voice recording equipment, his data collection method was simply to make handwritten notes in the field, which he would analyse himself.<ref name="Klahr" /> This differs from the modern practice of using multiple [[Coding (social sciences)|coders]] to ensure [[test validity]]. Critics such as [[Linda Siegel]] have argued that
These methodological issues mean scientists trying to replicate Piaget's experiments have found that small changes to his procedures lead to different results. For example, in his tests of object-permanence and conservation of number, the ages at which children pass the tests varies greatly based on small variations in the test procedure, challenging his theoretical interpretations of his test results.<ref name="Klahr" /><ref name="Dehaene 2020">{{cite book | last = Dehaene | first = Stanislas | title = How we learn: why brains learn better than any machine ... for now | pages=162–163 | publisher = Viking | location = New York, New York | year = 2020 | isbn = 978-0-525-55989-4 }}</ref>
| |||