# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 Response: Chavajay & Rogoff Study Review

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 Response: Chavajay & Rogoff Study Review

# data[].attributes.body
Elle Mollet

1.   Chavajay and Rogoff looked at how Mayan moms helped their kids solve puzzles. It was discovered that:

Moms with less schooling worked next to their kids, gestured and gave examples instead of words.

Moms with more schooling were more like the teachers and gave more detailed instructions and were more vocal with the kids.

Study shows that different cultures and educational levels can lead to different parenting and teaching styles.

2. What else could they have done in this study?

It would be interesting to see if fathers help the kids in the same way as the mothers do.

Watch how kids help each other. Include interactions between siblings or peers.

Study moms with a wide range of schooling to get a broader picture.

Try activities other than puzzles, such as storytelling or helping with chores, to see if the style of guidance changes.

3. Design a study:
To explore these ideas, I would design a study where both mothers and fathers interact with their children during different types of tasks, like puzzles, storytelling, or cooking. In one part of the study, the child would teach the parent a task, and in another, the parent would guide without speaking, using only gestures. Parents and children would then watch video recordings of themselves and talk about what they did and how they felt during the activity. This would help show how role reversal, task type, and communication style affect how kids learn and how families interact.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alexa Hisey Module 6 Response: Galotti 2005 Study Review

# data[].attributes.subject
Alexa Hisey Module 6 Response: Galotti 2005 Study Review

# data[].attributes.body
1. Galotti interviewed students of different ages about two types of goals. The first type focused on timing, such as what they wanted to accomplish in the next day, week, or month. The second type focused on category, like whether they had goals related to school, family, or other areas of life. The results showed that older students were more likely to set goals related to specific timeframes and responsibilities, such as schoolwork and chores. Younger students, on the other hand, tended to focus more on goals related to personal interests and hobbies.

2. One thing the authors could have looked into more is how a person’s culture, family income, and family dynamic affects how they set goals and make plans. Students who come from families or cultures with a stronger emphasis on schoolwork may have more homework/grades related goals than those who don't. They also could have studied how emotions or motivation, like confidence or support from family, play a role. Watching the same people over time could have shown how decision-making skills grow. It might also help to include older people, like young adults, to see a fuller picture of how these skills develop.

3. I would create a long-term study that follows people from age 8 to 25. It would include people from different cultures and backgrounds. Every two years, they would do interviews and activities to see how they make decisions and set goals. The goal is to learn how things like family support, confidence, and cognitive development/age affect how these skills grow over time.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In the study by Deanna Kuhn (1977), children aged 6 to 14 were asked to evaluate conditional reasoning problems. These included logic-based questions like, “All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?” Children were tested on their ability to understand logical structures like modus ponens and modus tollens, as well as common errors like affirming the consequent. The results showed that reasoning ability improved with age, but performance also varied depending on the format of the logical problem; some types were more difficult than others.

2. This study focused on age-related differences, but it didn’t account for educational background, cultural context, or working memory capacity, all of which could impact how children reason. It also didn’t test how children’s reasoning may differ when they collaborate with peers or adults. Including those factors might have revealed more about the role of environment and interaction in developing logical thinking.

3. I would say a cross-cultural, mixed-methods study that tracks children aged 6–14 over several years. It would include both individual and group reasoning tasks, using logic puzzles in multiple formats and contexts, like social vs. academic. The study would measure not only correct responses but also children’s verbal explanations, offering insight into how they reason through logic problems. It would also include variables like parent education level, school curriculum, and working memory.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 Response: Gauvain and Rogoff (1989) Study Review 

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 Response: Gauvain and Rogoff (1989) Study Review 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Gauvain and Rogoff evaluated children's decision-making abilities at different ages by having 9-year-olds and 5-year-olds examine a model of supermarket in order to determine the most optimal route for collecting specific items and comparing how much longer each age group's route was than the actual optimal route. The results were that 5-year-olds chose routes that were 2.6 times longer than the optimal route and 9-year-olds chose routes that were 1.5 times longer than the optimal route, and the 9-year-olds spent more time scanning the map/model. This shows some possible correlation between age and better decision-making (planning) skills.

2. The authors of the study could have explored older age groups than 9-year-olds to see if the correlation is really between age and planning abilities.

3. For my study I would study children who were 5, 9, 13, and 17 years old and ask them to plan (using a paper map with a scale on it and not an app or GPS device) to plan the optimal route for delivering various packages to people if they were a delivery driver for FedEx within a 5 mile radius (with the houses they need to deliver to marked and scattered throughout the map randomly). I would see how much longer or potentially shorter their route was compared the actual optimal route. Then I would repeat this test with different neighborhoods/areas to see if this trend continued regardless of location.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ricky Cap: Gauvian & Rogoff Supermarket Study (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
Ricky Cap: Gauvian & Rogoff Supermarket Study (1989)

# data[].attributes.body
1-     Choose one study from any of the first two Topics in Module 6. Discuss what they evaluated and what the results were.

Guavian and Rogoff set up a supermarket scenario to see how kids would plan their route with only basic constraints of reality applied to route selection. Older kids (9) scanned the map and came up with more time efficient routes. Routes created by 5-year-olds were 2.6 times longer than the optimal route. Showing that older children are better at planning than younger children.

2- Ask yourself: What else could they have done in this study? Is there anything else the authors could have explored? Here are some examples:

- Different age groups

I would do adults, too. Adults actually do shop for groceries and often plan routes by familiarity with the store they frequently. But sometimes these routes might not be optimal by some standards but are by others. Maybe younger kids applied a less ridged route, while older, concrete thinking, kids planned the robot route that would be optimal in sense of time, but not closeness of items to each other. Maybe younger kids were better at planning routes that were longer, but started with their main interests first, leading to suboptimal time, but optimal results of getting what they want first.

- Evaluate a different approach or theory

I think this whole experiment is kind of stupid as kids do not understand shopping as adults do. Most kids 5-9 can barely give directions to their home.  Much less appreciate how adults plan out a trip to the store, maybe making lists with milk and flour next to each other because they are located an aisle away, but with eggs later on the list because they are close to the frozen foods (which are always the last thing you get unless you want them to melt during your trip). I would test kids on something they actually understand and appreciate, not some grownup task that even most adults find burdensome,

3- Design an experiment or study in which you answer the questions that you formulated in prompt 2. There are no limitations to budget and timeline.

I would like to see how children make decisions about things they care about. So maybe how they decided on the route. Did it start with the toy aisle then move to the candy aisle? Did older kids scan the map for patterns of movement that went from point A at the entrance to point B at the exit? Or did they make a plan where they started with junk food and sodas, then moving away towards the final exit. I would then do the same for adults to see their rationality, which has probably been developing ever since they started shopping on their own. I would care more about what they were scanning for, not just the optimal or nonoptimal time the scan resulted in. I would also predict that the 5-year-old rational of priority is more akin to adult rational in route planning, but adults would be more similar to 9-year-olds in wanting it done in optimal time, also.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In this study Carey is discussing a 'naïve theory approach' which is that children construct commonsense understanding or theories that have individual concepts embedded in them and it is developed by the existing knowledge that they already have.

She is discussing an approach in talking about children's developing knowledge of biological concepts. Carey is arguing that children's understanding of what living thing undergoes tremendous change between 4-10 years. E.g., preschoolers have concepts of animals and people that are organized very differently from the way adolescents and adults organize these concepts.

Preschoolers know what an animal is by making analogies to humans

E.g., human mothers take care of their human babies so mama cub takes care of baby cub.

2. What else could they have done in this study?

Carey could have done different age groups maybe adolescents to adults and seeing adolescent analogies to adult analogies.

Maybe seeing the change in a child when they go from elementary to middle school or middle school to high school and seeing how their brain develops.

3. Design a study

In my study I would want to evaluate elementary age children specifically 10-12 years of age going into middle school 12-14 years of age. I would like to do boys and girls separate then together. Seeing if their 'naïve theory approach' would differ and if their analogies would differ depending on who their friends are and who they hangout with and if they have good grades.

# data[].attributes.headline
 Reasoning and Decision-Making in Middle Childhood

# data[].attributes.subject
 Reasoning and Decision-Making in Middle Childhood

# data[].attributes.body
One thing that really stood out to me in this module is how middle childhood is when kids start developing more logical, structured thinking. They’re beginning to weigh options, understand cause and effect better, and think beyond just the “right now.” It’s definitely not all fully formed yet, but you can see the shift happening and it’s kind of amazing to watch when you’ve worked with younger kids and then see how their thinking starts to evolve.

Back when I worked at the daycare, I remember a moment with a five-year-old who was trying to explain why he took a toy from another child. He said, “I wanted a turn because I waited yesterday.” In his mind, he had a system a memory of fairness, even if it didn’t line up with what we would call “logical.” But to him, it was a reasoned decision. That stuck with me because it showed me how kids are already trying to make sense of things and advocate for themselves in the ways they know how.

This module reminded me how important it is for adults to not just correct behavior but to ask questions and guide kids through their thought process. When we give them space to explain themselves and don’t just shut them down, we’re helping them develop those decision-making muscles. It takes time, support, and a lot of patience but they’re capable of so much more than we sometimes give them credit for.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 Yadhira Venegas- Study conducted by Chavajay and Rogoff

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 Yadhira Venegas- Study conducted by Chavajay and Rogoff

# data[].attributes.body
Apprenticeship and Guided Participation

-Guided participation- Learning a skill under the watchful eye of an adult.

-The amount of formal education influences the nature of guided participation

-The study conducted by Chavajay and Rogoff (1990) where Mayan Guatemalan mothers were         given a puzzle to construct with a group of children ages six to twelve.

-Mothers with high levels of education tended to organize the group hierarchically with different                                                                group members performing different tasks.

-Mothers with less formal education tend to engage the entire group collaboratively.

-Both forms of learning are beneficial for learning new tasks.

-Given children more than one task

-Older kids with more knowledge could help engage the younger ones in the activity.

-Make sure both groups are split equally by age. (It wasn’t clear if both sets of mothers got kids that were the same age)

If I were able to conduct this study with the information that I have now:

-I would give each set of mothers the same amount of children that were the exact same age. (If one set of moms has more older kids than the other it would be easier to give different tasks to different children as opposed to younger kids)

-I would give more activities, some play based interactions for younger kids like sorting blocks by color or size or molding playdough into letters or numbers and other more structured activities for the older kids such as making friendship bracelets or scavenger hunts.

-Definitely check in regularly on each group of mothers and make sure they are engaging and encouraging children to participate.

-Which group did better and why? Was it because some moms had more education or was it the group of children involved?

# data[].attributes.headline
Dean Albert -  Module 6: Deanna Kuhn (1977) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Dean Albert -  Module 6: Deanna Kuhn (1977) 

# data[].attributes.body
1. In Deanna Kuhn's 1977 study, she explored how children of different ages respond to classical reasoning questions. She worked with children aged 6-14, and her findings were that performance on types of reasoning varied depending on age and the kind of question. For example, 1st graders performed the best in Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, but the worst when looking at all classical reasoning problems. Overall, it was found that age did not serve as an accurate predictor of performance.

2. I would have liked to see all of the results in this study. The first is that the results given to us in the lecture only go to 4th grade, which is not up to age 14. Another thing that the authors could have explored is controlling for developmental pace. Not all children develop equally, and some of the variations in results among the different grades could be due to certain developmental delays or acceleration.

3. For a follow-up experiment, I recommend that there be 3 groups of children within the age ranges.

~Group A would be "on-time developers" (e.g., 1st graders who show cognitive patterns consistent with expected norms for their age)(e.g., 1st graders who show cognitive patterns consistent with expected norms for their age)

~Group B would be "early developers",. (showing reasoning abilities or cognitive skills ahead of their grade level)

~Group C would be "late developers". (showing delayed reasoning or cognitive patterns for their age group).

We would separate the children based off of developmental milestones that have been reached either early, on time, or late.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gauvain and Rogoff (1989): Planning evaluation in supermarket study   

# data[].attributes.subject
Gauvain and Rogoff (1989): Planning evaluation in supermarket study   

# data[].attributes.body
1. The study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989) evaluated children's planning abilities by having them navigate a model supermarket to collect items using the most optimal route. The results showed that older children (9-year-olds) used the map more effectively and chose more efficient routes only being 1.5 times longer compared to younger children (5-year-olds), who took paths that were 2.6 times longer. This suggests that planning skills improve with age, as older children exhibit better spatial awareness and strategic problem-solving.

2. Pairing children up could show whether teamwork leads to better planning and shorter routes. Adding a prize might reveal if motivation helps them strategize more effectively. Using a touchscreen instead of a model supermarket could test whether digital navigation improves spatial awareness. Each change offers deeper insight into how children develop planning skills.

3. Pairs of children, either two 5-year-olds or two 9-year-olds, navigate a touchscreen simulation of a supermarket to examine how digital navigation influences planning efficiency. Researchers have a reward system, where children receive a prize for the shortest route, encouraging strategic decision-making. Route length, time taken, hesitation points, and eye movements are tracked to assess how collaboration, motivation, and digital interaction impact planning skills. This setup evaluates whether two children together plan more efficiently than an individual in a digital environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Holly,

I enjoyed your critical analysis with different media and ideas such as evaluating if having a partner makes a difference in navigation and whether using a tablet with a touchscreen navigation affects planning efficiency. The idea of having a prize also studies if motivation will make a difference and prompt better planning. I also like the idea of working in pairs to evaluate if teamwork helps efficiency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Zelazo & Carlson (2012) Hot and Cool Executive Function in Childhood and Adolescence: Development and Plasticity

# data[].attributes.subject
Zelazo & Carlson (2012) Hot and Cool Executive Function in Childhood and Adolescence: Development and Plasticity

# data[].attributes.body
1. The study I chose was Zelazo and Carlsons Hot and Cool Executive Function in Childhood and Adolescence: Development and Plasticity (2012). They evaluated the development of executive function in children by reviewing research on how cool (emotionally neutral) and hot (emotionally charged) executive processes emerge. They synthesized findings from multiple studies, highlighting that cool executive functions like working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility show major improvements during middle childhood (ages 6-12), allowing children to reason more logically and make more deliberate decisions. In contrast, hot executive functions related to emotionally driven decision-making, such as resisting immediate rewards or making decisions under emotional pressure, continue to develop more slowly and mature into adolescence (around ages 13-18). Their results suggest that reasoning abilities tied to logical thinking strengthen earlier, while emotional decision-making becomes more refined later. They supported these conclusions by discussing experiments such as delay of gratification tasks and cognitive flexibility games that measure how children's self-control and decision-making abilities change with age.

2. The authors mainly focused on middle childhood and adolescence, but they could have compared younger age groups, especially early childhood (ages 3-5), to better understand when hot versus cool executive functions first begin to diverge. They also could have explored how cultural factors influence hot EF development, since emotional regulation and decision-making styles can vary across cultures.

3. New Study Proposal: I would design a longitudinal study that tracks children starting at age 3 through age 15, measuring both hot and cool executive function every two years. I would include children from diverse cultural backgrounds to examine whether the development of emotional decision-making differs depending on cultural norms around emotion expression. Tasks like delay of gratification and risky decision-making games could be used across ages.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Inhelder & Piaget conducted a study on children under the age of 8. The study included a comprehensive introduction allowing the children to identify between daisies, roses, and flowers. Within a chart they added four roses and two daises. Then asked the children if there were more flowers than roses. The results concluded the difficulty children have in differentiating between parts and wholes, as they answer there is more roses than flowers. In addition, Piaget adds that a child up until the age of 8 can compare only within two entities.

2. Within the study, I believe the authors could have explored with different variables. Variables more familiar to the children would have made it more evident that the children could not differentiate between parts and a whole or between more than two variables.

3. To revaluate this study, I would choose children within the age group of 6 to 8. Then, I would have children choose within their favorite foods. Considering their current diets are highly limited to fries and chicken nuggets for the sake of this explanation I will be considering it their favorite food. I would again include a comprehensive introduction to the experiment, having children identify between fries, chicken nuggets, and food. Then I would set out 3 pieces of chicken nuggets and 2 of fries. Then ask if there are more chicken nuggets than food. Children begin eating ever since birth, food is something they are completely familiar with, this would actually make it evident if children were not capable of identifying between parts and a whole, in addition to comparing only within those two entities.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The 1977 research by Deanna Kuhn examined conditional reasoning problem evaluations from children between ages 6 to 14 to determine their mastery of modus ponens and modus tollens logical structures. The participants read statements that read “All who live in Tundor are happy” followed by the comment on Jean's residence in Tundor. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?” Logical reasoning abilities reveal that older children make correct deductions while younger children frequently affirm the consequent according to research findings.

2. The research made strong progress showing how logical reasoning ability changes with age but its findings could have expanded if the study included younger test subjects to determine emergence stages or added realistic mental mindsets to observe contextual logical processing. The study's results would possibly have been strengthened through analysis of cognitive ability performance differences between children from different educational backgrounds.

3. I would create a longitudinal project using children between ages 4 and 18 who come from different educational institutions. The subjects would complete conditional reasoning tasks through abstract logical tests along with examples based in real-life circumstances containing emotional elements. The evaluation of cognitive processes during reasoning tasks can be achieved through eye-tracking along with neuroimaging techniques which helps researchers identify how participants reason as well as their decision-making mistakes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6- Melissa Herrera- Study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6- Melissa Herrera- Study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.body
Study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989)

1. The study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989) evaluated the planning abilities of children.  They asked the children to find the most optimal route to collect the items in a model supermarket. The results showed that the older children (5-9) tended to scan the supermarket map more than the younger children (3-5) and that the older children used more optimal routes. The results of this study suggested that older children are better at planning. The older children planned routes that were 1.5 times longer than the optimal route, and the younger children planned routes that were 2.6 times longer than the optimal route. This shows that problem-solving and planning abilities improve with age.

2.     Ask yourself: What else could they have done in this study? Is there anything else the authors of the study could have explored?

1-    I would have changed this study slightly. Instead of navigating the model supermarket,  I would have conducted a real-world simulation in an real grocery store. This could have improved the children’s planning abilities.

2-    The researchers could have added a third age group (10-13 years) to further solidify the conclusion that planning abilities improve with age due to cognitive development.

3-    The researchers could have considered the children’s emotions while performing the task. Children who find it more difficult may become frustrated or non-responsive, which could lead to poor performance in this planning task.

3.     Design an experiment or study in which you answer the questions that you provided for prompt 2. There are no limitations on budget and timeline.

-I would plan a study of 24 children total, eight children in each of the three different age groups:

Preschool-aged children (3-5 years old)- early childhood

Elementary school-aged children (6-9 years old)- middle childhood

Middle School-aged children (10-13 years old)-  late childhood.

The task would be to find the items on a list consisting of 8 items in their school classrooms. The children would be given a map of the classroom and a list. They would be asked to find the items on their list quickly. An adult would follow each child to track their route in the classroom, and the adult would track their time using a timer and assess each child’s emotional state. Studying in a familiar environment would help reduce anxiety and stress.  To do this on a larger scale, researchers could make it a scavenger hunt and expand it to the entire school.

Labeling it as a scavenger hunt would make it fun, which would increase their interest in participating. The older children, ages 10-13, would perform the best at this task due to their increased cognitive abilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 Discussion- Chavajay & Rogoff Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 Discussion- Chavajay & Rogoff Study

# data[].attributes.body
1. Chavajay & Rogoff examined how Mayan mothers with different education levels would construct a puzzle with 6-12 year olds. The results were:

-Mothers with higher education organized the kids so that each person was focused on a different task.

-Mothers with less formal education worked together as a whole group with all the kids.

-Both methods were beneficial to learning.

2. They could have done this study using only children (no adults) with different education levels. See how 12 year olds from different backgrounds would construct the puzzle. Public vs. Private School students.

3. I would examine two different groups of 12 year olds. One group goes to public schools and the other group goes to private (STEM focused) schools. I would then give them the same time limit (1 hour) to construct a given puzzle. For this I am looking to see if 1. maybe one student will take charge and help guide the group to completion or 2. see if the students work independently to completion or 3. the students don't agree on a way forward and nothing gets completed. Having my own experience in both education systems, I imagine both groups of students will come close to completion however the STEM focused students will likely work independently and the public school students will work together lead by one team leader.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In her 1977 study, Deanna Kuhn evaluated how children develop the ability to reason logically about hypothetical situations and problem-solving. She found that older children, particularly those in middle childhood, were more capable of using logical reasoning when solving problems involving multiple variables, compared to younger children. The study showed a clear developmental progression in cognitive abilities related to reasoning.

2. The study could have explored different age groups, including adolescents and adults, to see if and how reasoning abilities continue to develop. Additionally, it could have tested the impact of different variables like the role of social influence on problem-solving or how cognitive load affects reasoning abilities. Another approach could involve comparing different experimental designs, such as tracking reasoning development over time, rather than just a cross-sectional approach

3. To design an experiment, I would do a longitudinal study comparing reasoning abilities across a bigger range of age groups, from early childhood to adulthood. I would introduce variables like group versus individual problem-solving and measure how social interactions influence the logical reasoning someone has. This study could provide a deeper understanding of cognitive development and how external factors contribute to problem-solving skills across a person’s life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reasoning and Decision making: Gelman and Kalish (2006)

# data[].attributes.subject
Reasoning and Decision making: Gelman and Kalish (2006)

# data[].attributes.body
Reasoning and Decision making: Gelman and Kalish (2006)

1.Children's knowledge acquisition and conceptual development are studied in the Gelman and Kalish (2006) research which examines two fundamental theoretical frameworks: nativist and  empiricist. Children's minds contain pre-programmed concepts about causation as the nativist theory  claims. Children as young as two naturally understand that specific actions produce predictable results as demonstrated by their reaction to  dropping a glass. The empiricist theory states that people develop their concepts through direct interaction with their  surroundings. Children acquire the knowledge that lemons have a sour taste through direct tasting experience. The research  showed that both natural pre-wired tendencies and learning experiences play important roles in building a child's conceptual  structure thus demonstrating how development occurs through internal capabilities and external experiences interacting with each other.

2. Researchers should have examined various different approaches to achieve broader results. Research expansion could have been achieved through studying a broader age  spectrum that includes infants starting environmental interaction and adolescents developing their abstract reasoning abilities to examine developmental changes between innate understanding and learned experience. The researchers should have added multiple variables to study how emotional and social concepts including fairness, empathy and trustworthiness develop since this might show different innate-learned element balances. The study design could include a comparison between children from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds to evaluate how their environmental settings affect concept development. Research tracking the same children across multiple years through longitudinal methods would yield more comprehensive information  about how knowledge transforms with growing experience and brain development.

3: This longitudinal research study will observe children aged one to seven through their development. Participants each year would take specific assessment tests to measure their innate understanding of causality together with their learned sensory-based understanding of taste  and their ability to recognize colors and identify object characteristics. The research includes participants from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses to examine the effects of environmental exposure on concept formation. Researchers will focus on eliminating  external educational variables to reveal the distinct effects between natural developmental processes and experiential learning. The research method would generate a detailed picture of how knowledge develops across time while showing how cultural factors and environmental conditions impact cognitive development.

# data[].attributes.body
1- Choose one study from any of the first two Topics in Module 6. Discuss what they evaluated and what the results were.

The study done by Inhelder & Piaget (1964), tested children on their class inclusion abilities in order to identify their concrete operational stage. The children were shown a set of images depicting 4 roses and 2 daisies. Then they were asked to point to the roses, the daises, and then the flowers as a whole. Afterwards, they were asked, "Who would have more, the person who had the flowers or the person who had the roses?". The results showed that children would mistakenly answer that there were more roses than flowers. Piaget concluded that these results indicated children struggling with class separation between types of flowers and flowers of itself due to not being able to hold both class types in mind at one time.

2- Ask yourself: What else could they have done in this study? Is there anything else the authors could have explored? Here are some examples:

- Different age groups

- Different variables

- Different experimental designs

- Evaluate a different approach or theory

Having a different approach in mind, this study could be redone with modern neuroscience techniques to track the eye movement of children when they are introduced to the study. Researchers can track their eye movement when presenting the flowers, and when the child is asked if there is more flowers or roses. Additionally, the question can be asked with different item types instead of flowers, perhaps kids who don't know much about flowers or care about them give less accurate answers. Additionally, since the literature shows that children;s responses can be influenced by the framing of the question (eye witness testimony experiments), the class identifying question could be asked in several ways to cover any potential miscomprehension.

3- Design an experiment or study in which you answer the questions that you formulated in prompt 2. There are no limitations to budget and timeline.

An experiment design I would do would change up a couple of components of the study. I would use different image contents, a new eye tracking variable, and more experimental groups with different question framing. The reason I would add an eye tracking component is to see the children's visual behavior when asked to identify the roses vs. flowers. If children look longer at the flowers as a whole (quick movements from the daises category to the rose category), then potentially they understand, at least implicitly, the difference between the classes of roses and flowers. The experiment would also use something other than flowers, like dogs vs. cats. For example, 4 dogs, 2 cats, is there more dogs than animals? The framing of the question can be reformed for different groups of children. 15 children can be asked the question in that first way, then another 15 could be asked, is there more animals than dogs? Or another group could be asked, would you rather have all of the dogs or all of the animals and why?

# data[].attributes.body
1. The study that I chose was the Inhelder and Piaget study from 1996 that looked at class-inclusion class. The study took students and showed them 6 flowers, 4 roses, and 2 daisies. They first asked the children how many roses there were, how many daisies, and how many flowers. They found that up until the age of 8, children will state that there are more roses than flowers. Piaget states that “children will have difficulties distinguishing the difference between parts and a whole. During this time, “[children] can only compare two entities.” In conclusion, Piaget says that “children [at this age] cannot distinguish between parts and wholes.”

2. Something they could have done to change the study is to use a different variable, like colored marbles. I wonder if children would have the same difficulties in distinguishing the difference between parts and a whole. Would they come to the same conclusion if just the type of object changes?

3. First, conduct the same study that Inhelder and Piaget conducted with the flowers. Next, you show children ages 2 to 8 some marbles. There are 6 total marbles, 4 white marbles, and 2 blue marbles. You ask the children how many colored marbles they see. Next, you ask the child if they see more colored marbles or more marbles in general. This way, you can test to see if the children are still having difficulties with parts from the whole, but also to answer the question of does the same thing happens when the variable changes the change from flowers to marbles. Something that may also be interesting is do children consider the color white a color.

# data[].attributes.headline
KAI A ASHER: Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002)

# data[].attributes.subject
KAI A ASHER: Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002)

# data[].attributes.body
1. I chose to focus on the study conducted by Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002). This study seeks to explore how Mayan mothers of various educational backgrounds interact with their children and how those interactions differ. The study’s findings suggest that mothers with minimal schooling engage in a more passive parenting style, with no clear authority figures, instead favoring a collaborative approach. On the other hand, mothers with greater schooling tend to engage in a more hierarchical-based parental relationship. This is also reflected in the division of labor: those with minimal schooling participate in a multiparty approach, while those with more schooling engage in role assignment. The study aims to establish whether formal Western schooling shifts traditional indigenous ways of collaboration, specifically in regard to hierarchical problem solving.

2. When seeking to evaluate this study and potential changes it would be interesting to see how the findings vary amongst a diverse age group of children. It also would be interesting to see if father's presence and education level influences hierarchical dynamics.

3. If given the opportunity to conduct this study on my own, I would conduct a longitudinal study tracking how this dynamic changes throughout childhood and would include both mothers and fathers. I would seek to explore if parent interaction style shifts during childhood milestones and wether they maintain collaborative approaches.

Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling and traditional collaborative social organization of problem solving by Mayan mothers and children. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.55

# data[].attributes.body
1. This study was a supermarket study done with 5-year olds and 9-year olds. In this study, the children all had to study the same map. The main goal of this study was to see which age could have the fastest route with the grocery list that was given. The results showed that the 9-year olds had a faster route which meant they could plan more accordingly than a 5-year old. The 5- year olds had a 2.6 times longer route. The 9-year olds studied the map longer.

2. There are a couple things that I thought about that could be different or other things that could be tested and compared.

Comparing a map of the grocery store that, that child attends to the map they originally studied. Would the child have a faster route since they would already be familiar with that store?

Using these age groups but studying the time difference between boys and girls as well as comparing the 5 and 9- year olds.

3. I would design a study where they study the map that was originally given with the list included. Once that study was concluded, I would then give them the same list, but let them go their store and test it out in person. Would there route be the same? Would it be faster considering they are familiar with their surroundings? I would then compare the times of studying a map vs physically getting through the store with the list.

# data[].attributes.body
1.

Deanna Kuhn’s 1977 study evaluated the development of children’s understanding of causal reasoning in relation to eyewitness testimony. Specifically, she investigated how children of different ages could distinguish between their direct observations and inferences made from those observations. Kuhn found that younger children (ages 5–8) were more likely to confuse their inferences with actual observed events, while older children and adults demonstrated a clearer ability to separate what they had seen from what they had assumed. These results suggested that younger children’s eyewitness testimony could be compromised by their tendency to treat inferences as facts, a developmental limitation that improves with age.

2.

While Kuhn’s study provided important insight into children's ability to separate observation from inference, additional factors could have been explored. For instance, the study could have evaluated how children from different cultural backgrounds approach causal reasoning and memory reporting. Another area for expansion could involve assessing the impact of stress or emotional arousal on children's ability to distinguish inference from observation, as real-life eyewitness situations are often emotionally charged. Furthermore, using longitudinal methods might have captured developmental changes more dynamically rather than through cross-sectional comparisons alone.

3.

To address these ideas, I would design a longitudinal, cross-cultural study examining children's causal reasoning and eyewitness memory over time, starting from age 5 and continuing to age 15. Participants would be drawn from diverse cultural backgrounds and periodically exposed to neutral and emotionally arousing scenarios, followed by structured interviews assessing their memory accuracy and separation of observation from inference. This design would allow for the evaluation of both developmental progressions and the influence of cultural and emotional factors on eyewitness reliability.

# data[].attributes.body
In the study they looked into how children from different cultural settings engage in problem-solving tasks. They compared Mayan children who were in a rural village and also a European-American community that was middle-class. They looked at how they went about tasks like navigation and using different tools. They found in the study that there are big differences between how the children from each group acted in their environment. The Mayan children showed more collaboration and community-based views, while the European-American children used more individualistic ideas.

I think that they could have looked more into different age groups and how the cultural differences change with age. They could've compared younger and older children.

I also think that they could have looked into parental influence and how the children act based on how they were raised, as this is a big changer.

They could have looked into experimental models where they could get a better understanding of how the children's problem-solving skills change as they age.

They could have also used some cognitive development theories to see if the skills and their differences go along with any stages of growth.

I would make a cross-cultural study to see how the children from different cultures develop their problem-solving skills over time. Looking into how the factors of the parents involvement and their schooling can make a difference in their growth mentally. I would have a range of age groups so that I could look at how it changes with age, not just culture.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In module 6 topic 1 we are learning about higher order cognitive skills such as reasoning. In a 1977 study by Deanna Kuhn worked with children ages 6-14 to evaluate their reasoning. She asked these children classical reasoning questions such as, "All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?" Results from grades 1-4 showed that performances varied according to the format of the problem.

2. I would have liked to see the results of everyone in this study. Why would you study up until 14 and not use the data from the age range? I would also like to see a wider age range in early childhood. Such as starting the study at 3 instead of 6.

3. I would perform a longitudinal study examining children's reasoning between the ages 3-10. I would be examining the same group of children for a long period of time. I believe between these ages substantial growth happens and we could easily measure that growth this way. This would provide a great example of how reasoning changes through early childhood into late childhood.

# data[].attributes.headline
module 6 : accuracy and age in cued-recall task 

# data[].attributes.subject
module 6 : accuracy and age in cued-recall task 

# data[].attributes.body
in this study carried out by roebers and schnedier (2002), they studied two groups of children spanning between the ages 6, 8, and 10 were they had these children watch two seven minute videos (Money theft and treasure hunt). They watched both videos twice 3 weeks apart from each other. researchers then interviewed the children individually starting with open ended questions then transitioning to specific questions, misleading and unbiased questions. What they found was there accuracy and ability to recall details of both videos rose with age furthermore there was the same age related increase when responding to the unbiased statements and correcting misleading questions. Roebers and Schnedier concluded that in middle childhood children are increasing their capabilities of recall, they are more often able to accurately remember events that happened to them.

2. after reading I think a few things could have been expanded upon like they should have done ages 6-10 and not just ages 6,8, and 10 you’re missing in between ages and that could offer more insight into the study. It might be beneficial to see the gradual increases from 6 to 7 and 8 to 9 it might seem small but details matter. another aspect I think they could’ve done a bit better with is having a separate group of kids not get to watch the videos again after three weeks and test their ability to recall when time has passed and they only watched the video once, staying with that same thought process the researchers could’ve interviewed the children multiple times maybe once after 2 weeks once after a month and once after 6 months to gain more insight of the children's ability to accurately recall events

# data[].attributes.headline
Planning evaluation study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
Planning evaluation study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.headline
Gauvain and Rogoff (1989) Planning Skills

# data[].attributes.subject
Gauvain and Rogoff (1989) Planning Skills

# data[].attributes.body
This study evaluated how 5 to 9-year-olds navigate a grocery store to collect all the grocery store items efficiently. What they discovered is that the older children evaluated and analyzed the route more than the younger children. This led the older children to pick more optimal ways of collecting the items in the store than the younger children.

I think it would have been nice to see other age ranges and layouts of grocery store layouts. For example, some children's brains may be able to view optimization if the shape of the store were a circle instead of a square or triangle. Another suggestion is to test the variations of complexity within age ranges.

To design a study similar, trying different age groups, shapes, and complexity. I would be interested in the data comparing the variations in not only shape and complexity, and how they play into different age groups. Are there expectations for the normal or previous results?

# data[].attributes.body
One study from Module 6 that I found interesting was Deanna Kuhn’s (1977) research on children's decision-making abilities. The study evaluated how children between the ages of 6 and 14 approached solving problems, like selecting the best route in a supermarket task. Results showed that older children were more efficient in their planning, using shorter and more logical paths, while younger children took longer and made more mistakes. This suggested that decision-making skills improve significantly with age and experience.

One thing the study could have explored further is how emotions, like stress or excitement, impact a child's decision-making ability. The original study mainly focused on logical thinking, but emotions often play a big role in real-life choices, especially for younger children who are still learning how to regulate their feelings.

If I were to design a new study, I would compare children’s decision-making in both calm and mildly stressful situations. I would include children ages 6 to 14 and add a short, timed challenge to create pressure. This way, we could see whether stress affects the quality of their choices and if age influences how well they cope with the added pressure.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The study by Guavain and Rogoff (1989) examined how children learn more effectively when they collaborate on tasks. This study involved observing 5-year-olds and 9-year-olds as they navigated a supermarket using the same map. The primary objective was to determine which age group could identify the fastest route based on a provided grocery list. Results indicated that the 9-year-olds completed the task more efficiently, planning their routes more effectively than the younger children. In fact, the 5-year-olds took a route that was 2.6 times longer than that of the 9-year-olds. Additionally, the older children dedicated more time to studying the map before executing their plans.

2. I thought of a few alternative approaches that could be explored or tested. One idea is to compare the layout of a local park that a child frequently visits with the layout they initially learned about. Would this familiarity help them navigate the park more efficiently? Additionally, while using various age groups, it might be interesting to examine the differences in learning between boys and girls, as well as making comparisons between younger children, like 5-year-olds, and older ones, such as 9-year-olds.

3. To investigate these questions, I would design a study that includes children of various ages (like preschoolers, elementary, and middle schoolers) working on different types of collaborative tasks (like art projects or math problems). I’d track their progress over a few months to see how their learning improves with teamwork, while also considering different cultural backgrounds to see if that affects how they work together.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Deanna Kuhn studied and evaluated kids that were ages 6 to 14. These kids were evaluated based off some questions, some being, "All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?" The results would then how that the children's reasoning improved as they were older but depending on the format of the question, the performance could vary. This would help show children's logical understanding of structures like the modus tollens or modus ponens.

2. This study focused on the age of children and how each age/stage of life affected the children's logical understanding of structures. But I feel as though the study could have benefited following the children throughout their middle childhood. If they followed the same children as they developed, asking the same/similar questions. I feel the study could've really shown how children mature and begin to think logically.

3. If I were to do this study I would take a group of kids all aged 6. My study would include kids of all different backgrounds, from those who are privileged to less privileged. As well as different races and ethnicities. These kids would be questioned either semi-annually or annually. The question would be relatively the same or close to Deanna Kuhns question.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 Response: Deanna Kuhn (1997)- Natalie Worthington

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 Response: Deanna Kuhn (1997)- Natalie Worthington

# data[].attributes.body
1. I chose to evaluate Deanna Kuhn's (1997) study on conditional reasoning. This study involved children from ages 6 to 14, and were asked logical questions such as " if all who live in Tundor are happy, and Jean lives in Tundor, is Jean happy?" Through this study Kuhn concluded that the formatting of the questions asked was the main cause of performance variation, not just the child's age. This means that the older children didn't always perform better, it all lied within the questions formatting and structure.

2. I wonder if children would reason differently to emotion based questions instead of pure logic. In my opinion, Kuhn's study could have gathered more information if she looked at emotional reasoning and not only logical reasoning. Asking questions that involve feelings with real life choices and not only abstract 'if/then' situations. I believe answers would change if feelings and emotions were involved. It would be interesting to see how younger kids(4-5 year olds) perform compared to older teens (16-17), a greater age group compared to Kuhn's original study (6-14 year olds) could show different reasoning patterns. Another interesting idea/approach could be adding a time limit or pressure to see if rushing changes how kids reason.

3. In my study I would ask two types of reasoning questions: one pure logical and one emotional, real life scenario. My participants would be children of the ages 4-17 to widen the age gap between participants to see the stark differences or similarities. In order to add the pressure of a time constraint, I would have one set of participants with no time limit, while the other would have to answer within a time-constraint. In this study I would be comparing how emotion and the pressure of time affect the performance and reasoning patterns within the widened age groups. I hope to find how logical and emotional reasoning develop or change within stress/pressure and based on age as well.

# data[].attributes.headline
Marianna Piedrahita Module 6 Subtopic 1 

# data[].attributes.subject
Marianna Piedrahita Module 6 Subtopic 1 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Gauvin & Rogoff (1989) gave children the task to find the most optimal route to collect items in a map model of a supermarket with the only rule being you cannot ‘fly’ across the map. Results showed that older children (9 years old) tended to scan the map more while younger children (5 years old) used routes that were 2.6 times longer than the optimal route. In conclusion, they found older children were more likely to scan and utilize more optimal routes suggesting better skills at planning and optimal decision making.

2. It might show helpful results to experiment on different age group variables with older children being up to 11 or 12 years old and the youngest being 4 or 5. Showing the map and allowing the child to find the optimal route is helpful in understanding decision making in middle childhood however, it may be helpful to solidify results and further understand decision making processes by putting the children in a real ‘store’ situation that they must navigate.

3. In my version of this experiment, I would keep the map task as it gives great insight into how a child scans and thinks about the most optimal plan to get around the supermarket. I however, would take it a step further and place the child in real life store conditions with the same map and perhaps a time limit condition to see if they continue to follow their plan to be able to get the items in the task in the amount of time given. I would test a variety of children from 4-12 years old and with an even amount of children of different genders as this may take the study another step further in the understanding of children's decision making and planning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chavajay & Rogoff (1999) Study- Daniela Sicari

# data[].attributes.subject
Chavajay & Rogoff (1999) Study- Daniela Sicari

# data[].attributes.body
1. They wanted to understand if and how a child's cultural background affects attention and learning and if the mother's amount of formal education would or would not affect the child's learning. They observed how Mayan mothers helped their children solve puzzles. They found that mothers with less formal education were more likely teach the children in a collaborative way and noticed the children being more observant. The mothers with more formal education were directive in their teaching, giving tasks to children and categorizing in a hierarchical way.

2. A way in which I think they could have done something differently is by asking someone other than their mother to teach them. Observing any differences if a father or a different caretaker helped with the puzzle would be interesting.

3. I would change this study by instead of using Mayan mothers to teach the children, I would have the fathers teach a basic skill. I would ask for a task such as fishing, building, or any other culturally appropriate task. I would then observe how the child watches and participates using the same measures of attention and learning. I would be interested in observing different patterns based on gender roles and how that might affect learning.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I chose The Inhelder and Piaget 1964 study on class inclusion where they looked at children up to the age of 8. They asked the kids to decipher between the flowers, rose, and daisies. The results showed that children up to 8 claim that there are more roses than flowers so it is determined that they have a hard time distinguishing parts from wholes and can only compare 2 entities at a time in this case either roses or daisies.

2.  Inhelder and Piaget could have expanded their study by including different age groups, such as younger children under 4 and older children over 10, to better track how the understanding of parts and wholes develops over time. They also could have introduced different variables, like using familiar objects (e.g., toys, animals, foods) instead of just flowers, to see if familiarity impacts children's ability to correctly answer class inclusion questions. Another idea would have been to test different experimental designs, such as giving children more time to think or using visual aids to see if that changed their responses.

3. I would design a larger study that includes children ages 3 to 12. I would test them using a variety of familiar and unfamiliar objects, asking class inclusion questions similar to those used by Inhelder and Piaget. I would also add a visual aid condition for some participants to see if it improves their ability to recognize parts and wholes. This would help show how age, familiarity, and extra support affect class inclusion understanding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Libby Freeman - Module 6: Deanna Kuhn (1977)

# data[].attributes.subject
Libby Freeman - Module 6: Deanna Kuhn (1977)

# data[].attributes.body
1. In this study that was done in 1977 by Deanna Kuhn, she asked children from ages 6-14 years old to assess conditional, logic reasoning problems. A logic based question that she would use would be, All who live in Tucson are happy. Jean lives in Tucson. Is Jean happy? Children were tested on their capacity to acknowledge logical structures like modue ponens and modus tollens. They also were expected to recognize common errors like stating the consequence. The result was that logical reasoning improved with an age. However the way the problem was set up could also add difficulty compared to other problems were set up easier.

2. One thing an author could have looked out for was cultural context. Another way they could've tested this, is through kids their age asking the questions or adults. Environment is a huge aspect of how and what we learn as children, so adding a portion of that into the study would be a good way to measure the comprehension of ogical reasoning.

3. I would test the children from 6-14 within an environment that suits them. I would ask them questions based off the type of living environment they live in. I would also add in their education environment. I would have peers ask the questions and compare it to adults asking the questions. It would be smart to add in different ways to ask the logical questions. Through puzzles, mazes, verbal and written logical thinking problems.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jasmine Peoples Module 6 Response: Gauvian & Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
Jasmine Peoples Module 6 Response: Gauvian & Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.body
1-

Gauvian & Rogoff (1989) conducted a study where they evaluated children’s ability to create the most optimal route inside the supermarket. The directions included “no flying” across the map, meaning no shortcuts. Older children (9) scanned the map thoroughly and developed routes that were 1.5 longer than the optimal route. Younger children (5) developed a route that was 2.6 times longer than the optimal route. The study concluded older children were more likely to scan and use more optimal routes, suggesting they were better at planning.

2-

Other factors they could have included in this study is adding a time limit. This would be a variable that could test their planning skills under pressure. They also could have added other variables such as hunger vs not hungry condition to see if this impacted their planning performance.

3-

I would design a virtual reality based supermarket with participants aged 5-15. There would be a variety of trials; one with a countdown clock, and one where participants would be shown food images/smells so they are hungry, and one completely neutral as a control. I would compare the age, pressure and hunger state and see how they affect children's planning ability.

# data[].attributes.headline
Emma Garner - Module 6: Deanna Kuhn (1977) Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Emma Garner - Module 6: Deanna Kuhn (1977) Study

# data[].attributes.body
1. Kuhn evaluated conditional reasoning. She did this by seeing how children aged 6-14 responded to classical reasoning questions. She found that the results from the reasoning experiment varied depending on the format of the problem. For example, first graders performed exceptionally well on the Modus Ponens (basic valid reasoning) but underperformed on the Denying the Antecedent category, which involves invalid reasoning. Overall, there was no relationship between overall reasoning and age group, as the second graders performed the best overall, which is counterintuitive.

2. The authors could have explored the relationship between age and invalid reasoning more. Why did even fourth graders struggle with affirming the consequent? It would be interesting if the authors explored why this logical error persists.

3. To determine whether the Affirming the Consequent logical error is developmental or not, we can conduct a study on this topic. I would run the same experiment, focusing solely on this logical error, and create an instructed group and a control group. The instructed group would receive one week of brief lessons on logical reasoning, specifically on affirming the consequent. The control group would receive their basic lessons without a focus on logic. I would then administer another test to both groups and compare the results. I would also do a follow-up test after one month to see if the instructed group sustained this knowledge. This would demonstrate whether explicit teaching can correct this common logical problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
Katie Caison Module 6 Padlet - Deanna Kuhn Study 

# data[].attributes.subject
Katie Caison Module 6 Padlet - Deanna Kuhn Study 

# data[].attributes.body
1. In 1977, Deanna Kuhn wanted to study conditional reasoning in children ages 6 to 14. To do this, she asked these children a series of questions, one of which was, "All who lives in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?" All of the questions asked in the study reflected the ideas of different logical fallicies used in philosophy. The study revealed that there was a linear relationship between the ages of the children and the correct answers to the questions that were being asked. Typically, older students actually performed lower in the study compared to the younger students, and second graders performed the best out of all the ages. The findings in the study concluded that the format of the problem being proposed to the children was what determined their performance, it was not necessarily their age.

2. I think the study could have done a few things differently in order to ensure the validity and reliability of this experiment. First, I think the education and socioeconomic status of the children could have been taken into account. Some children may have received less education, or not as great of an education, as some of the others in the study which might have been indicative of their wrong answers. I also think Kuhn could have expanded the age range even further, possibly starting at 4 or 5 years old, to further emphasize the fact that younger children performed better than the older children.

3. If I were to recreate this study, I would start by gathering a wider age range of children starting at 4 years old and going to 17 or 18 years old. I would also administer surveys to the children before the study begins to gather information on their educational and socioeconomic background. I would then create about three groups using this information, ensuring I have equal representation of different ages and backgrounds in each group. Finally, I would ask similar questions to the one's Deanna Kuhn proposed in her study.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 response: Inhelder and Piaget (1964) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 response: Inhelder and Piaget (1964) 

# data[].attributes.body
Amanda Singer

1: Inhelder and Piaget evaluated a study asking children up until 8 years old to to define the roses, daises, and flowers. These children claim that there are more roses than flowers. The results were that according to Piaget, children have difficulties distinguishing the difference between parts and a whole. The child can only compare two things such as a rose or daisy. The conclusion was Piaget argues that children cannot distinguish between parts and wholes.

2. The authors could have explored the difference between young adults and the young children's views of defining the roses, daises, and flowers. Comparing different age groups.

3. A study that I would design is having children that are 8 and under tell the difference between the roses, daises, and flowers. Then comparing young adults answers comparing the different flowers too. Then going a little deeper into these different thought processes that you develop overtime as your mind expands. Such as young children not understanding parts and wholes then overtime young adults do understand parts and wholes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I chose the study by Deanna Kuhn (1977), which evaluated conditional reasoning in children ages six to fourteen. In this study, children answered classic logical reasoning questions, such as, “All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?”; this is an example of modus ponens. Another question asked, “All people in Tundor own cats. Mike does not live in Tundor. Does Mike own a cat?”; this is an example of denying the antecedent. The researchers found that performance on modus ponens tasks decreased with age. They also found that second graders performed the best overall. However, overall performance varied more by the format of the problem than by the child’s age.

2. The study could have further explored differences in reasoning based on type of schooling, such as homeschooling, public, private, charter or alternative schools, or differences in cultural background. It also could have examined how emotional content influences children’s reasoning skills, especially since emotion regulation is still developing in children at this age.  Including emotional reasoning problems could reveal whether heightened emotions disrupt logical reasoning or influence them in any way.

3. I would design a study that examines how emotional content in conditional reasoning problems affects children’s logical reasoning at different ages. I would create two sets of reasoning tasks: one neutral, as in the original study, and one with emotional content. For example, in the neutral set, “All people in the store are wearing red shirts. Gina is wearing a red shirt. Is Gina at the store?” For the emotional set, “All children who have a sick pet feel sad. Tim’s pet is sick. Is Tim sad?” I would test children from multiple school settings, ages six to fourteen, with diverse cultural backgrounds. I would then compare performance across age, schooling type and emotional vs. neutral task sets to determine whether emotional content improves, impairs or has no effect on accuracy, and whether these effects vary based on age, schooling background or type of emotional content.

# data[].attributes.body
Chosen Study & Results
Deanna Kuhn’s 1977 study examined how children between ages 6–14 approached conditional reasoning problems framed as logical statements. Beyond simply testing right or wrong answers, her study revealed that children's success depended heavily on the way the problems were presented suggesting that logical ability is partly tied to how well they understand the structure of a situation, not just pure cognitive development. Importantly, the findings implied that younger children often could reason logically but struggled to recognize when and how to apply it without clear external cues.

What else could they have explored?
Kuhn’s study focused on whether children could arrive at correct logical conclusions, but it didn’t explore how aware children were of their own thinking (metacognition) or how motivated they felt when solving abstract problems. Children who struggle may not lack logical ability but may have lower confidence, different goal orientations, or misunderstand what is being asked. Investigating children's awareness of their reasoning strategies and how their motivation levels affect performance could provide deeper insight into both strengths and barriers in cognitive development.

Proposed Study

I would design a study where children aged 6–14 solve conditional reasoning problems in three formats: traditional logic statements, emotionally charged story scenarios, and interactive digital simulations. Each format would use the same logical structure but differ in presentation and context. I would measure both accuracy and response time, and also collect brief verbal explanations to understand their thought process. This would help reveal how emotional content and digital interactivity influence logical reasoning development!

# data[].attributes.headline
Topic 1: Reasoning and Decision-Making by Miguel De Hoyos

# data[].attributes.subject
Topic 1: Reasoning and Decision-Making by Miguel De Hoyos

# data[].attributes.body
Gauvain and Rogoff, 1989

The study by Gauvin and Rogoff (1989) used two different studies that were  intended to look at "the role of social interaction in children's learning to plan" (p. 139). They used two studies. The first one focused on comparing planning between 5- and 9- year old kids. The comparison in the first study was based on the children planning independently versus planning with peer.  The second study looked at 5-year-old children planning independently compared to planning with a parent or peer. So only study 1 looked at the difference between the two age groups.

The planning task in the study for the children to accomplish was to create a route on a provided simple diagram map of a  grocery store to pick up a number of given items.

Study 1 predictably found that the older children used more advanced scanning and planned more efficient routes (1.5 times the optimal route) than the younger children (2.6 times the optimal route). Study 2 found planning with a parent produced routes 1.6 times the optimal distance compared to planning with peers (2.4 times the optimal distance). Planning alone, the 5-year-olds produced routes 2.7 times the optimal distance

It seems that the study is focusing primarily on younger children, just before they grow to develop more cognitive ability based on physiological development, especially in the frontal cortex as we learned in our previous units.  I think that 9 years old is certainly on the lower end of the concrete operational age scale. I would have liked to see an additional group comparison to look at the upper end, which were 11- to 12-year olds for greater stratification. Are there differences all across this age spread of the concrete operational stage?

I would modify the design of the study to compare across lower, mid, and upper age of children across the concrete operational stage. So rather than two groups, it would be three with the addition of a group that was 12 years old on average. This third group could then be analyzed individually, as the other groups are, and as peers for the younger age groups.

# data[].attributes.body
1- In topic 1, there was a study by Inheider and Piget where they presented 6 flowers to children under the age of 8. Initially, the child was asked to define the roses, daisy, and flowers. There wee 4 roses and two daisies. All of them are flowers. Piaget said that children will have difficulties distinguishing the difference between parts and a whole, and a child can only compare two entities. In this specific example, his is referring to either roses or daisies. At the end of the study, Piaget concluded that children cannot distinguish between parts and a whole.

2-  Something else that could have been done in this study is exploring different variables. I think it could have been interesting to compare different items such as types of dogs. An example of this could be having two labrador retrievers and 6 dalmations. Both of these are considered dogs, but they are both a different type of dog.

3- In order to reevaluate the study, I would use dogs instead of flowers, There would be 2 labs and 6 dalmations. The children, still under the age of 8, would be asked if there are more labs or dogs. Because they cannot differentiate between parts and a whole, the children might not be able to do this task successfully.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Study:

The Galotti (2005) study looked at how decisions are made. It asked various aged students about two categories of goals: Time-Based and Category based. The conclusion of this study was that older children tend to have more goals related to school and chores than hobbies. This result shows that decision-making for children starts off simple and is often based on simple choices and immediate rewards but with age they start to be more careful in their decision making and start considering future results (consequences).

2. What else could they have done in the study?

The researcher could have considered seeing how emotional influences may play a role in children's decision making. Emotions can strongly impact reasoning which is why it could have played a role in this study.

The researcher also could have looked into how peer influence or parental influence plays a factor in how a child makes decisions.

3. Study Design:

I would follow suit with Galotti by doing a qualitative study focused on how technology plays a factor in children's decision making but I would also make this into a long term study to follow the kids through out the ages of 6 to 18 to see how their dependency on technology changes. I would add an extra element of looking into how peer influence effects a child's choice in their technology use and how dependent their decisions are on technology. I would start with a group containing 6 children for each age category(3 boys and 3 girls). The age categories would 6, 8, 10, and 12. This in total would be 24 subjects to follow throughout the years. We would follow the each age group till they reached the age of 18 and see how much their use and dependency on technology changed and how the increased usage with age changed their decision making pattern. I think this could give more insight to something that is happening in today's present society.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 6- Kuhn's study 1977

1. In 1977 Deanna Kuhn's conducted a study evaluating children's reasoning skills from the ages 6-14. These children ranged from grades 1-4. Kuhn gave a modes ponens statement/question: "All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?" This question gave the classical if "P" is true then "Q" is true. Interestingly, as the age increased their ability to correctly answer this question decreased. Kuhn attributed this decrease to the formulation of the question.

2. This study used a modes ponens question that logically should result in a clear result. However, older children may be thinking outside the box and imploring more inductive reasoning. Children at this age may think that people are complex and to assume everyone is happy is a logical fallacy. The complexity of their cognitive abilities is in fact clouding their ability to give a correct answer.

3. If I were to conduct this experiment, I believe the instructions prior to the experiment need to be clearly stated. The instructions would need to be given in a way that explains some questions have clear answers while others are open for interpretation. These instructions would need to be carefully thought thru as to not bias the outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In the study completed by Deanna Kuhn (1977) focusing on children ages 6-14, looking at their conditional reasoning. After asking children the question “All people that live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?”, she found that performance varied based on the way the question was formatted. Children were also tested on their ability to detect logical structures like modus ponens, modus tollens, affirm the consequent, and deny the antecedent. With understanding logical structures like these, she found that the older children were better at this.

2. I think it would have been important to take into account children’s developmental background before completing this study. Because children develop at different paces, some of their answers could have varied due to this. Also, keeping the format of the questions the same throughout would have been important as well. Because some of the question formats were more challenging, it could have affected results.

3. In my own study, I would keep the children ages 6-14, but I would have them complete a series of tests prior to completing the study. These tests could measure their cognitive skills, such as attention, memory, comprehension, and reasoning. I would have three different score ranges, and then place the children in each age group into these score ranges. I would structure the question the same throughout the study to each of the categories, and then evaluate my results.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Reasoning and Decision is a higher level cognitive skill that they develop through middle childhood. Deanna Kuhn evaluated conditioning reasoning in kids from 6 to 14 years old. She saw that younger kids scored higher on modus ponens. There were no significant results showing evidence that age influenced better reasoning from 6 through 14.

2. In this study they found some significant results that showed 6 years olds scored the best in modus ponens. But could not identify why that is. Results concluded that performance varied on the structure of the problem. I believe the study needed to apply more open-ended questions after a short clip to see if year olds can have the same results in this structure of experiment.

3. Another approach to this theory using a different method could be asking kids open-ended questions after some short clips to see if they can draw the relationship between cause and effect using prior knowledge instead of being influenced by the bias of a question.

# data[].attributes.body
Deanna Kuhn Study (1977)

Reasoning and Decision Making

Deanna Kuhn focused her study on reasoning of children between 6 and 14 years of age. The strategy she used was asking the children classical reasoning questions, such as “All who live in Tucson is happy. Dr. Tang lives in Tucson. Is Dr. Tang happy? Also “All people in Tucson own cats.” Dr. Tang does not live in Tucson. Does Dr. Tang own a cat? Our class lecture discussed the conditional reasoning process with an antecedent (If p) and a consequent (then-). When the antecedent is true, it is affirmed. Also named “Modus ponens,” which means valid. If the antecedent is denied it means it is invalid, or false. If affirming the consequent, it means it is invalid. If denying the consequent it means valid, or Modus tollens. There is a linear relationship between the correct answer and the age of the child. As the children grew older the results for Modus ponens questions decreased. The study revealed that age does not predict the number of correct responses. Deanna Kuhn attributes the lower performance of older students as a tendency to respond indecisively such as “maybe,” instead of a more definitive answer.

There were no variables in this study besides age. The design of the experiment should include the sex of the children, their social economic status, ethnicity, and where in the world they live. My experiment design has a control group and an experimental group. The experimental group will have the same answers as yes, no, or maybe. It will also have an answer as “possibly a different answer.”  The control group will have either yes or no. This is to evaluate if having additional options for answers affects the answers they will choose.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sarah Ahumada: Module 6- Inhelder and Piaget 1964 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sarah Ahumada: Module 6- Inhelder and Piaget 1964 

# data[].attributes.body
1. In this study Inhelder and Piaget presented children with four daises and two roses. They asked children if there were more flowers or roses? This was meant to test whether children understood that both roses and daisies are a type of flower. They found that most children under the age of 8 would answer that there are more roses. Demonstrating that they didn't yet understand that "flowers" included both types. Older kids were more likely to answer correctly showing they had reached that stage of thinking where they understood parts and wholes. A stage Piaget referred to as Concrete Operational.

2. I think something different they could have done would be to change the categories to something other than flowers. Food or toys would expand the range and show us if it was specific to flowers or just the general cognitive development stage they're at.

3. If I were to conduct my own study I would have students bring in their favorite toy. I myself would bring in a box filled with legos (as my favorite toy). After each child presents their toy to their peers I will pass around a survey that students will pick their favorite toy of the day. at the end of the survey I would have a bonus question that reads, "Are there more legos or more toys?" This way the children will be engaged and excited to bring their favorite toy and we can see if they understand parts and wholes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading comprehension and writing skills Juel, 1988 Study Review

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading comprehension and writing skills Juel, 1988 Study Review

# data[].attributes.body
1. I chose the study that begins at 2:31 in the second video of topic two. They looked at reading and writing comprehension and how those two things are correlated. They found that the third and the fourth grade are pivotal times for reading and writing comprehension.

2. They could have continued the study through graduation to see how the children continued to learn and grow. We have talked about how children grow and develop through middle school, so to see how reading and writing changes would be interesting to see. We could evaluate the attachment theory and how the children's relationship with their parents affects their performance in school.

3. I would start a longitudinal study comparing reading and writing comprehension. I would have about 50 boys and 50 girls. I would talk to them about their attachment to their parents and figure out what attachment style they are. I would see how reading and writing comprehension differ by attachment style and by age.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In Deanna Kuhn's study, she worked with children aged 6 to 14 and evaluated them on conditional reasoning. Given classical reasoning questions such as "All who live in Tundor are happy. Is Jean happy?". Surprisingly, the results show that the second graders (who were the second youngest group in the study) performed the highest overall in answering correctly. However, the study mainly concludes that there is no definitive prediction of performance based on age group.

2. I feel like the researchers could have used a larger range of age groups, like seeing the differences between children in kindergarten and children say approaching middle school.

3. For my study, I would gather a group of 5 year olds, possibly differing in background characteristics, and ask them a few similar questions to the ones in Kuhn's study, maybe using a few more than she did. Then, I would revisit the same group of children when they have reached the age of 11, asking the same questions and comparing their previous answers to see possible changes in conditional reasoning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 Response: Inhelder and Piaget, 1964

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 Response: Inhelder and Piaget, 1964

# data[].attributes.body
1. Inhelder and Piaget (1964) conducted a study where children are shown six flowers, four of them being roses and two of them being daisies. They were then asked "Are there more roses or are the more flowers?" Children younger than seven years old will typically say there are more roses than flowers. The results of this experiment showed that children in the preoperational stage aren't able to differentiate categories, at least not until middle childhood.

2. I believe this study could be performed with different variables; instead of flowers, use toys. Toys provide sentimental value to most children, and I believe it could have provided different results compares to flowers.

3. I would create an experiment presenting toys - three toy cars and five teddy bears. This allows for a better correlation between kids and things they are familiar with. Following the structure of the original experiment, I would ask "Are there more toys or are there more teddy bears?" My study would consist of children between four to ten years old who would randomly be assigned to groups and given no explanation of what the items are. Also, I'd want to see if any factors may affect these skills and change their understanding such as pictures, tangible object, or even some sort of display.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I chose the study by Ceci, Ross, and Toglia, which looked at how easily children can be influenced by misleading information. Kids aged 3 to 12 heard a story, then received either neutral or misleading follow-ups. When tested three days later, younger children were more likely to remember the false details, showing how suggestibility decreases with age.

2. Besides age, I think the study could’ve explored other factors—like whether it matters if the misinformation comes from a peer or an adult, or how emotional the false info is. Also, longer delays and individual differences (like verbal ability) might affect how kids process and retain misleading info.

3. I’d design a study testing kids ages 4, 7, and 10. They’d watch a short video, then—after a delay—hear follow-up info from either a peer or adult, framed as neutral, positive, or negative. Memory tests would follow. This setup would show how timing, emotion, and the messenger impact kids’ recall and reasoning.

4. I liked the peer study on kids’ decision-making in daily situations—it felt realistic and age-appropriate. A big strength is how relatable the scenarios were. One way to improve it might be adding a longer-term view or looking at outside influences like parents or media, since those also shape how kids make choices.

# data[].attributes.headline
Christa Godwin Module 6 Response: Barron and Scott (1991)

# data[].attributes.subject
Christa Godwin Module 6 Response: Barron and Scott (1991)

# data[].attributes.body
Baron and Scott (1991) studied both moral and also practical dilemmas, and also how children aged 6–12 reason through them. Younger children (6–8) relied more on concrete reasoning, as they focused on immediate outcomes or rules. Fairness, intentions, and also long-term consequences were considered in the more abstract type of thinking of older children (9–12). Piaget described about this as reflecting on a developmental shift from pre-operational to concrete operational thinking.

The study had a few limitations, while quite useful.

- Age Range: A full developmental pattern was not shown because either younger (under 6) or older children (teens) were not included in it.

Reasoning in children could vary culturally across cultures, but the study did not explore that.

- Certain decisions are influenced through the use of feelings such as empathy or fear but pure logic was the key focus and those feelings were simply not examined at all.

- Design: Reasoning varies along time among equivalent children, which such a longitudinal design could show.

Design A Study:

Goal: To explore the development of reasoning and decision-making across a number of ages (4–15), multiple cultures, and diverse emotional situations.

Children among three age groups (4–5, 8–9, 12–13) across three countries (e.g., U.S., Japan, Nigeria) were participants.

Moral choices have to be involved within age-appropriate dilemmas. Risk and fairness must also be as components. In excess of a time frame of five years, follow emotional reactions, reasoning explanations, as well as decisions.

Reasoning specifically in childhood would be greatly shaped by aspects of age, of culture, and also emotion, the study would surely reveal, offering a much broader decision-making type of understanding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6:  Janel Sutton - Inhelder & Piaget (1964)

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6:  Janel Sutton - Inhelder & Piaget (1964)

# data[].attributes.body
1. In this study children are asked to define between two different types of flowers. The reason why they are asked questions to define the flowers is to check their comprehension. What they found was that ages 8 and below the child when asked would usually be able to tell the type of flowers apart, but not the difference in amount of types. This shows that the child has issues distinguishing differences when coming to parts and whole. The child can only compare two items.

2. Something else the researchers could have added to the experiment to add on to the study is an older age group as well. This would allow for the study to show when the child can tell the difference between part and whole and at what age. This could also show why that growth happens. What causes the child to learn this ability and what is holding the younger child back. Is it a natural growth of understanding or is it taught to them over time.

3. For the study with older ages I would ask the same questions that priorly asked to children under the age of 8 to children between the ages 9-12. I would try to find some further questions along the way as well to see if there is a connection to another subject that allows the child to learn part from whole. Maybe add more items for the older children to tell apart.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 Response: Inhelder and Piaget (1964)

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 Response: Inhelder and Piaget (1964)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Children were shown in the study conducted by Inhelder and Piaget, done in 1964, six flours, four of which were roses and two were daises. These children were then asked a set of questions that wanted to categorize the flowers. The questions were how many roses there were, how many daisies, and how many flowers there were. Inhelder and Piaget found that young children answer that there are more roses than flowers, meaning their class inclusion is lacking. As children were unable to keep track that flowers were the categorization of rose and daisy, and flowers were the whole while roses were the parts. They focus on only the bigger number or group.

2. Things they could have changed is the amount of children they tested alongside what they used to test the children, such as fruit. They maybe could have explored if children know the whole more (meaning, instead of flowers that children do not constantly interact with, they use toys or something), then maybe they would get the part compared to the whole correct. I also wonder if size would change their perception of if there is more.

3. I would show children 11 fruits, 7 are bananas and 4 are apples. I would as the children how many fruits there are, how many bananas there are, and how many apples there are. Then, I would ask if they see more bananas or more fruits. This would ensure that the children are being asked the same criteria as Inhelder and Piaget but with a different, more familiar set of objects.

# data[].attributes.body
Ana Robles – Module 6 Response: Kuhn (1977) Study

1. In 1977, Diana Kuhn studied how kids between ages 6 and 14 handle "if-then" logic questions. She gave them problems like “If all the people in Tundor are happy, and Jean lives in Tundor, is Jean happy?” Most of the younger kids could answer easier ones correctly, but struggled when the answer should’ve been “maybe” (like when there wasn’t enough info to say yes or no). The older kids gave more thoughtful answers but sometimes overthought things and chose “maybe” too often when a clear answer was possible. The study showed that conditional reasoning improves with age, but how kids answer depends on how the question is asked.

2. One thing the researchers didn’t test was how even younger kids (like 4- or 5-year-olds) might handle easier logic questions using familiar ideas. They also only used fantasy examples about a made-up place called Tundor, so we don’t know if kids would’ve done better (or worse) using real-world situations they understand better. Lastly, they didn’t ask the kids to explain why they picked each answer. That could’ve helped show whether the child misunderstood the question or was just guessing.

3. I’d create a new study that includes kids ages 4 to 13. They’d answer two sets of logic problems: one using a fantasy story (like the original study) and one using real-life examples like pets or school. Each child would say why they picked their answer, and we’d look at whether familiar content helps younger kids reason more accurately. We’d also see how age affects their ability to handle fantasy vs. real-world logic problems. This could help show when kids can start thinking logically no matter what the question is about.

4. Peer Critique (for Alexa Hisey): I liked how Alexa's study looked at long-term growth and included different cultures and backgrounds—it makes the study more meaningful and realistic. One thing she could add is a more detailed plan for how to track changes in motivation or emotions over time, since those things can be hard to measure just through interviews. Still, it’s a really thoughtful design with a strong focus on development.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Deanna Kuhn's (1977) research concentrated on how middle schoolers start to acquire scientific reasoning abilities, specifically their capacity to recognize causative factors and conduct methodical hypothesis testing. Although her findings were fundamental, the study may have been developed in a number of ways. To assess how scientific reasoning changes over time, one approach would be to include various age groups, such as young children (years 5–6), older teenagers (ages 14–15), or even adults. A developmental investigation of when and how logical thinking and decision-making techniques improve would be possible with this wider age range.

2. Adding more variables to the experiment would be an additional enhancement. To determine whether emotional context affects thinking, Kuhn might have, for instance, included activities with emotionally charged outcomes or socially relevant issues. Furthermore, altering the experimental setup to contrast individual and group-based thinking may shed light on the ways in which peer collaboration influences the development of hypotheses and the process of making decisions. A more comprehensive knowledge of the cognitive processes involved in middle childhood would result from investigating these extra dimensions.

3. I would plan a multi-phase, cross-sectional study with kids ages 6, 9, and 12 to address these topics. In a controlled experiment, participants would determine which of a number of factors, including soil type, water, and light, influences plant development. Participants would be split in half, with half working alone and the other half working in pairs. Researchers would be able to evaluate how age, social cooperation, and varying complexity affect kids' capacity for scientific reasoning with this approach. The study would expand on Kuhn's seminal work by comparing performance under these situations, furthering our knowledge of how middle childhood reasoning and decision-making evolve.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6-- Deanna Kuhn (1977), Cognitive Skills and Decision-Making

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6-- Deanna Kuhn (1977), Cognitive Skills and Decision-Making

# data[].attributes.body
1) Deanna Kuhn, in 1977, researched children's conditional reasoning to further scientific knowledge of higher order cognitive function throughout middle childhood. To do this, children were asked classical reasoning questions meant to evaluate logical reasoning capabilities. Questions such as "All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?" The responses for questions such as this reveal the child's understanding of an antecedent, the 'if' portion of the question, and the consequent, the 'then' portion. Results from this study indicate a correlation between age and percentage of correct responses. Older participants showed a decreased linear percentage of correct responses. The final conclusion drawn was that performance varies and cannot be definitively explained.

2) 2) An aspect that may influence outcomes of this study is developmental capacity. Forms of reasoning and orders of cognitive processes allowed by developmental capacity are not uniform between all studies and ages. A child's capacity for abstract or hypothetical reasoning may be strongly influenced by such factors. I would also like to know how a longitudinal study of the performance of a singular group of children may change from the age of 6 to 12.

3) 3) Organizing different groups of children based on developmental capacity and respective of their age would be an effective way of understanding how these factors may sway the results of this study. Children may be evaluated prior to testing and classified in 3 different groups in terms of levels of cognitive function. For example, group 1 may be "These groups may then be ranked in age and evaluated within the framework of Kuhn's study.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ashley Vandersee - Gauvian and Rogoff's Study 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ashley Vandersee - Gauvian and Rogoff's Study 

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Gauvian and Rogoff Supermarket Study looked at how cultural context influences children's decision-making. The study compared how children from two different cultures, American and Guatemalan Mayan, made choices while shopping in a supermarket. The results showed that American children were more likely to make decisions independently and focus on their own choices, while Guatemalan children tended to rely more on adult guidance and made decisions in a more cooperative way, reflecting their cultural values.

2. Different age groups: It would be interesting to see how older and younger children make decisions in this context.

Gender differences: It would be interesting to look at how gender might affect the way children make decisions in different cultures.

Peer influence: The study could have investigated how friends or classmates affects children's choices, especially in a social setting.

Parental roles: The study could have explored the specific roles mothers vs. fathers play in guiding children's decisions in these cultural contexts.

3. To explore these new factors, I would design a study that looks at how gender and parental roles influence decision-making across different cultures. Children from American and Guatemalan Mayan communities would participate in a task where they make decisions both with their mother and father involved. Additionally, the study would compare decision-making with peers in a social setting to see how much peer influence changes the choices children make, especially in different cultural contexts.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I chose Deanna Kuhn's study in 1977, and what was tested was general ideas and if two things are related. Reasoning was tested and got better with age, when compared to younger children.

2. The study should have included older and younger children. Also, there should have been more categories for less bias.

3. I would have designed the experiment to include different age groups and culturally different children also. More different children than the normal majority. It would take a little more time but would be worth it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Inhelder and Piaget studied children under 8 years old; the study was interested in the children’s abilities  to determine class inclusion. Children were asked to name different groups, in this case roses, daisies, flowers. Then they were asked if there were more roses or flowers. The results suggested that children up to 8 years old cannot tell parts from the whole; children this age could only compare two classes and not hierarchical groups or subgroups.

2. The study could have explored something more familiar for the children like types of toys – stuffed animals and barbies. Or maybe some consideration for arrangement of the groups, maybe don’t have all roses grouped together and all daisies grouped together. Do colors play a factor between the groups?

3. I would modify the study and investigate the children’s ability to determine class inclusion with a set of toys consisting of 4 toy cars and 2 toy trucks.  Visually the child can see that they are vehicles with four wheels that they can roll along a playmat with road markings.  After presenting all the “toys” the reseacher could engage the child to count the toys by type: How many cars? How many trucks? How many toys? Are there more cars of more toys?

# data[].attributes.body
1. In the study by Miller and Kassel (1993) they focus on how children make decision and use reasoning in social contexts. They evaluate children's reasoning abilities and whether they improved or not as they age. They specifically looked at the decisions about fairness and resource allocation. The results of the study suggest that younger children will make decisions based on immediate rewards and older child were more likely to consider fairness and long-term outcomes.

2. The study could have used different age groups. The study focused on children ager 4-10 but it would be interesting to see the study with adolescents. The study also mainly looked at fairness and resource allocation but experiencing other variables such as social influences could offer more insight. A longitudinal study could track how children's decision-making skills develop over time. A theory-based approach using cognitive load theory or social-cognitive theory might provide a deeper understanding of how children navigate reasoning tasks.

3. To address these questions I would design a study with three age groups. Children would participate in decision-making tasks involving fairness, resource allocation, and social influence. The study would measure how different age groups respond to varying levels of peer pressure and different fairness criteria.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lexie Ferreira Module 6: Gauvain and Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
Lexie Ferreira Module 6: Gauvain and Rogoff (1989)

# data[].attributes.body
1. The study by Gauvain and Rogoff (1989) evaluated children's planning by looking at their route-finding abilities using essentially a supermarket route navigation task. In the study they specifically examined 5-year-olds and 9-year-old children's ability to find the most optimal route to collect items in a model supermarket but they couldn't just fly across the map. The results revealed significant differences in cognitive development where 5-year-old children created routes that were 2.6 times longer than the optimal path and performed limited map scanning, while 9-year-old children created routes only 1.5 times longer and demonstrated more thorough map examination. With that they  concluded that older children were more likely to scan and use more optimal routes suggesting that they were better at planning compared to younger children.

2. I think it would be helpful to focus on a broader range of ages like ages 4-12 because this range captures a critical period of cognitive development. The wider age range would provide a more significant understanding of how planning abilities progressively develop during middle childhood. Instead of a model supermarket, I'd conduct the study in an actual supermarket to test children in a real-world environment that more accurately reflects more real navigation challenges. I think it would be interesting to add time constraints to create additional cognitive load, so we could see them balance route efficiency with time management, which is a lot more complex. I would also compare neurotypical and neurodivergent children to explore how different cognitive approaches navigation and planning and I could discover strengths and weaknesses between the 2 groups.

3. I would do a longitudinal study that tracks children aged 4-12 in real supermarket environments. The experiment would use new technologies like eye-tracking glasses so that I could capture detailed data on navigation strategies, and I would divide participants into neurotypical and neurodivergent groups. Each participant would complete multiple trials under varying time constraints, trial 1: 15 minutes, trial 2: 10 minutes and trial 3: 5 minutes, and I would analyze route efficiency, decision-making processes and reasoning, and stress responses. The study would not only compare group differences but also create individualized cognitive mapping approaches that could share insights into diverse learning.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In Deanna Kuhn’s 1977 study explored in Topic 1: Reasoning and Decision-Making in Middle Childhood, she worked with children to evaluate their conditional reasoning. The study involved asking children aged 6 to 14 classical reasoning questions, such as “All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?” The results demonstrated a linear relationship between the ages and Modus Ponens answers (decreased as the participants' ages increased). The other results varied and did not show as clear of a pattern.

2. Something that I think could have also been explored in this study is testing different age groups. For example, they could have also worked with adolescents and adults to see how conditional reasoning evolves over time, especially to observe the Modus Ponens category and determine if the relationship would continue to be linear.

3. To evaluate this for people of different ages they could perform tasks that continue to follow classical reasoning but of different/higher difficulties rather than asking a 20 year old the question “All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?” they could be asked about more thought provoking scenarios.

# data[].attributes.body
1. A study by Kuhn in 1977 evaluated conditional reasoning, in which children aged 6-14 were asked classical reasoning questions such as "All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?". The researchers aimed to observe how children evaluate logical fallacies, including modus ponens, modus tollens, affirming the consequent, and denying the antecedent. The results showed that, overall, reasoning improved with age. However, performance varied according to the format of the problem. Thus, the age does not necessary predict the amount of correct responses that they give.

2. Other things that the researchers could have done in the study include expanding the age range, including both children under 6 and older than 14. This could help track children's development and progression in logical reasoning. In the same way, expanding the age range into late adulthood to see if these kinds of logical reasonings decline or plateau with age or neurodegenerative disease might be interesting. Also, including participants from different backgrounds, including educational or socioeconomic, may provide information about how different environments correlate with reasoning ability.

3. For my study, I would examine children aged 6-14 from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Within each of the four grade levels, participants will be divided into three groups based on socioeconomic status: children living below the poverty line, children from middle-class families, and children from wealthy families. Each participant will be individually asked a classical reasoning question, such as "All who live in Tundor are happy. Jean lives in Tundor. Is Jean happy?". Then, I will analyze the responses not only across the four grades, but also within each socioeconomic group, focusing on logical structures such as Modus Ponens, Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent, and Modus Tollens. This design would allow for exploration into how environmental factors and social determinants may influence cognitive development and logical reasoning ability.

# data[].attributes.body
Study I chose: Deanna Kuhn (1977)

1. Deanna Kuhn directs this study to kids of the ages  6-14. It focuses on the way kids react to classical reasoning questions. The study focuses on targeting kid’s cognitive abilities. Problem solving is a big part of this study as well as made up scenarios that require thinking skills. Overall, the results were that children that reside in middle childhood experience cognitive thoughts and have higher thinking skills than the younger kids.

2. Something else that I believe could have been done in this study is that dreams should have also been taken into account. Do the older and younger kids both dream complicated & problem-solving dreams? Are their dreams different in the way they are structured or their actions inside them? Comparing and contrasting would give the audience a new perspective.

3. The proposal I would suggest is a longitudinal study that focuses on the way children use their cognitive reasoning. I would lile to focus on the ages 4-9. Between the ages 4-9, the brain goes through many stages which include higher reasoning and assimilation. If the longitudinal study focuses on the differences and similiarities between the lowest age and the highest, it will show the inevitable and outstanding changes between these two periods.

# data[].attributes.headline
Module 6 - Piaget's & Inhelder Flower Study - Nathaniel Hoyer

# data[].attributes.subject
Module 6 - Piaget's & Inhelder Flower Study - Nathaniel Hoyer

# data[].attributes.body
The study I will be evaluating is the flower study done by Piaget and Inhelder. They presented children with 6 flowers consisting of 2 daisies and 4 roses. Firstly, they performed a comprehension check where they asked the children to identify the roses, the daisies, and the flowers, all separately. It was found that children under 8 years old had trouble distinguishing the parts from the whole. They struggled to identify all of the 6 objects as flowers; they could only identify the distinction between roses and daisies. When I was learning about this experiment, I wish I knew the range of children they asked and what age groups were more common than others. A different approach I would suggest is asking if they see the flowers first, rather than asking them if they can distinguish between the two types of flowers. An experiment to test this theory of identifying parts from a whole would be an experiment consisting of showing the same object but in different colors. For example, I would show the same 6 Lego bricks, but 4 of them are blue and 2 of them are yellow. I would then ask the children if they see Different objects or the same. Then I would ask them if they can distinguish the colors apart, but still acknowledge the object as a whole. Overall, the experiment is a good way to tell if this certain age range of children can identify objects as a whole instead of looking at them individually because they look different from each other.

# data[].attributes.body
The research on reasoning and decision making in middle childhood is helpful because it explains how children begin to think more logically and make better choices as they grow. Piaget’s theory is especially useful for understanding these changes, as it shows how children move into the concrete operational stage and begin to use logical thinking rather than relying only on perception. However, this theory may not fully explain how children think in all situations, especially when emotions or social influences affect their decisions. Additionally, research on executive functioning shows that skills like self-control and working memory also play an important role in how children make decisions. Overall, this information is relevant because it helps explain how children develop important thinking skills that are necessary for school, relationships, and everyday problem solving.