# week 10 problem solving…. problem solving ground feet

of 57 /57
Week 10 Problem Solving…

Author: douglas-manning

Post on 12-Jan-2016

312 views

Category:

## Documents

Tags:

• #### months baillargeonbuthave

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

Week 10

Problem Solving…

Problem Solving

GROUND

FEET

FEET

FEET

FEET

FEET

FEET

Problem Solving

What is it? Goal-directed, means-end behaviours

When can we do it?8 months (Piaget:object retrieval)7 months (Diamond) 4 months (Baillargeon)BUT…Have to make problem relevant and

interesting!

Topics

Inducing rules

Planning

Reasoning by analogy

Formal reasoning

Bilingualism II

Inducing Rules in an Oddity task

One of these things is not like the other…

One of these things is not like the other:

Pike

Plate

Pleather

One of these things is not like the other:

Piaget

Information Processing

Connectionism

Kids can learn to do this at a very young age with concrete objects

Move from needing hints (<6), to concrete items (6+), to more abstract sets of items

Adults typically get it on their own WCST eg

Siegler’s Theory

Believes that all of cognitive development can be explained by improvement in problem solving abilities, with increasingly powerful use of rules

Scale Problem What way would the scale tilt?

Siegler’s Theory

Believes that all of cognitive development can be explained by improvement in problem solving abilities, with increasingly powerful use of rules

Used Rule-Assessment approach to determine what rules children were using

Siegler’s Theory

Predicted 4 identifiable rules that could be used

1. If weight is same, balance; If different, side with more weights goes down

2. Same as 1, but if weight is equal, then farthest from center goes down

3. Can use both above, but if there is a conflict (more weights on side that is closer to middle), then guess

4. If situation above arises, calculate torque (weight X distance), and side with greater torque will go down

Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4

Balance 100 100 100 100

Weight 100 100 100 100

Distance 0 “balance” 100 100 100

Conflict-W 100 100 33 (chance) 100

Conflict-D 0

“right down”

0

“right down”

33 (chance) 100

Conflict-B 0

“right down”

0

“right down”

33 (chance) 100

Balance

Weight

Distance

Conflict - Weight

Conflict - Distance

Conflict - Balance

Siegler’s Theory of problem solving

Adaptive Strategy Choice Model All 4 strategies are available at all times

They compete to be used

Younger = more perceptual

Applies to many other aspects of problem solving

Following Rules:Cognitive Control and Complexity Theory

Devised by Zelazo and colleagues

2-year-olds can sort cards by 1 rule, but not 2

2 ½ can sort by concrete categories but not abstract

3 years can sort a deck into 2 boxes, but can’t switch into opposite boxes (DCCS)

Show an Abulic Dissociation

The CCC

Perseverate on pre-switch if: rules repeated on every single trial after only one trial regardless of shape or colour on card regardless of order

Why?

The CCC Rule Hierarchy

If colour game and

Blue Red

Then hereThen here

Then here Then here

If shape game and

Circle Square

Cannot reflect on rule system as a whole and use it all.

Planning (A kind of problem-solving)

3 characteristics of planningOccurs in novel and complex situationsWe plan opportunistically, in an abstract

way, with gaps in the plan so as to revise as we go along

Planning has both costs and benefits, in that it saves time, but is cognitively demanding

Planning (A kind of problem-solving)

Children have trouble planning ahead until the age of 5

5 reasons why:1. Inhibitory failure

2. Tend to act impulsively, rather be quick than correct

3. Planning seen as difficult and time-consuming

4. Not always rewarded for it

5. Just take task for what it is, fun!

E.g.: Tower of Hanoi

3-year-olds can solve two disc problems, but just cheat if they confront barrier

Can solve longer problems with increasing age

Older children know to establish subgoals

Even at age 6, have a hard time moving away from main goal when completing subgoal

Reasoning by Analogy

Examples:

Rice:Sake :: Grape:??????????

Bird: Nest :: Dog:??????

Analogical Reasoning

Goswami: Can do so from very young Relational Primacy Hypothesis (Chen,

Sanchez, & Campbell, 1997)29% solved 1st problem, 43% solved the 2nd,

and 67% solved the 3rd

Factors affecting Analogical Reasoning

Relational Shift Shift from focus on perceptual features to focus on

relational similarities

Knowledge What we know can help us

Eg. Goswami’s Three little bears task

Metacognition Training improves performance

Eg. Brown & Kane

Formal Reasoning

Where form of argument and logical, not actual, truth must prevail

This is very difficult until teens, sometimes beyond (Piaget was right!)

We use syllogisms to examine this form of logic

Formal Reasoning Examples

If there is a cow, then there are horns.

There is a cowThere are horns

True or false?

Formal Reasoning examples

If there is a cow then there are horns.

There is no cow.There are no horns.

True or false?

Formal Reasoning

Adults go through all possible combinations of conditions

to arrive at the correct answer

< 10 or 11 children fail to consider all possibilities

But… we can all do badly on false implication conditions!

However, sometimes young children can solve these syllogisms

Hawkins’ study

3 kinds of syllogismCongruent with reality

Bears have big teeth, animals with big teeth can’t read books. Do bears read books?

Incongruent with realityGlasses bounce when they fall, everything that

FantasyAll Zaphods are plaid. Plaid things have

webbed feet. Do Zaphods have webbed feet?

Hawkins’ study

4- and 5-year-olds can do congruent syllogism

But not incongruent: couldn’t ignore what they know to be true

They all did well on the fantasy items

Relate children’s problem solving to other cognitive developmental feats…move away from perceptual towards conceptual, can handle more and more info with age…

Bilingualism II

Remember: No reliable effects of a second language on any forms of actual language development

Effects are seen on metalinguistic tasks: Sun/Moon Grammaticality Moving Word

Bilingual children and problem solving

What do these tasks have in common?

They all contain some kind of distracting information!

There are no differences on tasks with no distracting information

Move away from language to lower-level cognitive processes…

Bialystok & Majumder, 1998

Children were English, Chinese-English, and Bengali-English

Water Level Problem

**

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Water Level Block Design Noelting

MonolingualBilingual

* p < .05

Mean number correct in Post-Switch

0

2

4

6

8

10

4 Years 5 Years

Age

Nu

mb

er C

orr

ect

MonolingualBilingual

Bialystok & Codd (1997)

Towers Task (Duplo VS Lego)Contains distracting info

Sharing TaskDoes not contain distracting info

Children are told:

Here are 2 friends. Here are some cookies. Your job is to give everyone some cookies, and you have to make sure you all have the same number of cookies. Make sure you count them out!

Results

(Surprise) Bilingual children outperformed the monolingual children on the incongruent conditions of the Towers task

Both groups did the same on the congruent conditions as well as on the sharing task

Simon Effect

Stimuli contain target and position cues, and subjects must ignore position

Simon effect is RT cost when position leads to the incorrect solution

When you see a red square, press the button on the left.

When you see a green square, press the button on the right.

L R

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Congruent Incongruent

MonolingualBilingual

Condition: F (1,32) = 4.19, p < .04

Group: F (1,32) = 7.40, p < .01

** **

Choice between (apparently) valid options

Problem domain irrelevant