Dialectic and Formal Structures in Cognition of

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 118 – 123

Third Annnual Internattional Conferrence «Earlyy Childhood Care and Edducation»

Dialecticc and Forrmal Struuctures inn Cognittion of Prreschool C Children n Nikoolay Verakssaa* a

R Russian State Univeersity for the Hum manities, GSP-3, Moscow, M Miusskayaa Square, 6, 1259993

Abstracct In the arrticle difference between dialecttical and formal logic of understanding the proceess of child deveelopment is show wn. The researchh was aimed at comparison c of th he development of o dialectic and formal logic’s structures in seniior preschoolers (N=69, M=81 months). m To assess the develop pmental state of dialectic structuures the Cycles test was designned and used. Results showed that developmennt of dialectics and a formal logic can be viewed as a a developmennt of two separate cognitive proccesses. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2013 The Authors. Puublished by Elseevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selectioon and/or peer-reeview under resp ponsibility of Ruussian Psychologgical Society. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Russian Psychological Society. Keywordds: dialectics, dialeectical logic, formaal logic, cycle

Introductiion Psychologyy and philosop phy recognize two branches of logic – form mal logic and dialectics. Diaalectics (also diialectic and thee dialectical method) m is consiidered a tool foor cognizing reeality in its dynnamics, while formal logic iss used to perceive things at reest. Dialectics in many ways is found in moost of the psychhological apprroaches [1; 2; 3; 3 4; 5; 6]. Thee use of dialecttical constructss is clearly appparent in the works of Vygotssky, Piaget andd other psychologists in the field f of child development. d P Pascual-Leone notes that the logic Piaget used in his workks was t Hegelian diaalectics than to o the common western w European logic of mathematics m andd philosophy [77]. He closer to emphassizes that while works of Vygotsky V repreesent external dialectics of child developpment (child’s social interacttions), Piagetiian works feaature internal dialectics of development,, which Piageet connected to the relationnship between genesis and sttructure [8]. Piiaget in his woork “Elementaary Forms of Dialectics” D noteed that dialectiical thinking couldn’t c be sim mplified to fitt categorizationn forms (thesiis, antithesis, synthesis) s becaause it exists where w two nonn-contradictory y separately funnctioning systeems unite to form fo new entityy that enhancees their separatte possibilities if functioned d independentlyy. At this Piaaget describes dialectics as a “logical asppect of equilibrrium” [9].

* Corrresponding authorr. E-maail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Russian Psychological Society. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.097

Nikolay Veraksa / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 146 (2014) 118 – 123

Piaget defined a number of dialectical situations: 1) Unification of two separate structures into a third one that enhances their separate possibilities; 2) Coordination between the parts of the same object; 3) Introduction of new structures as sub-systems; 4) Circular interaction (establishment of equilibrium by moving back and forth); 5) Transition from initial independence of separate objects to their coordination (like in learning to play chess). Piaget stressed that all five of these situations could be described with one general statement: dialectics is a genetic aspect of every balance. In this point of view Piaget apparently confused two different processes – developmental process per se, that by its nature is dialectical, and the very different process of dialectical thinking, which relies on its own logical structures. Hypothesis We believe that the genesis of the cognitive structures responsible for formal logic is separate from the genesis of the dialectical structures responsible for the development of dialectical thinking. While structures of formal logic are built around interrelations between classes of objects, central to dialectical structures are interrelations of the opposites, where separate objects, groups of objects, or their properties are mutually exclusive. We believe that an object can be analyzed from two separate logical viewpoints – formal logic and dialectical logic. The dialectical viewpoint is the ability to recognize both the opposites and the interrelations between them. Besides mutual exclusion, among types of dialectical interrelations are: transformation, mediation, integration, conversion, seriation and change of alternative. These interrelation types compose elementary dialectical structures. The analysis of the elementary dialectical structures allowed Zadadaev [10] to create their Dn mathematical model with all the interrelation types interlinked within a formal dialectical structure, schematically illustrated (for structural link Dn with n=2) in the Fig 1.

Fig.1 Simplified scheme of D2 category. Contrast to Piagetian tradition, we consider dialectical thinking a transformational process based on operations with opposites. On the level of image representation dialectical transformations are presented in the form of cycle. The latter appears when children develop stable notion of objects. Methodology Our research task was to compare the development of dialectic and formal logic’s structures in senior preschoolers. To assess the children’s ability to make generalizations, which is an index of formal logic development, we used the Odd One Out method [11]. To study the development of dialectical structures in children we designed and used the Cycles method which models one of the dialectic situations defined by Piaget (situation # 4)

119

120


Sample g (from 5,55 to 6,5 years of o age; The researcch sample included 33 childrren of a senior kindergarten group M=75 m months), and 36 3 children of pre-school p kinddergarten groupp (from 6,5 to 7,5 years of agge; M=86 montths). Proceduree The study experiment waas conducted inndividually in kindergarten’s k separate room m. The test taskks were introduuced to childrenn using a tablett computer, whhich accounted for their high level of interesst. In the Oddd One Out study the experim menter showedd children setss of four picturres depicting objects o familiarr to children. In I each of the sets children were w asked to decide d which picture p is the odd o one out. Chhildren then weere asked to give the rest of three t pictures one o general terrm and explainn their choice. Children’s respponses were annalyzed takingg into considerration the use of generalizations in their speech, s their knowledge k of general g terms ffor classes of objects o and whether the generralizations werre based upon essential, or nonessential attrributes of the iintroduced objjects. When a child decided correctly baseed upon an esssential attributee, they were given g 1 point. O One point was also given in situations wheere a child deccided correctly but couldn’t find f the generaal term and subbstituted it witth similar word ds or phrases (for example, instead of shooes – boots). For F all other kiinds of answerrs children wereen’t given poin nts. To assess the t developmen ntal state of diialectic structurres, we used thhe Cycles test. The test included 14 items eeach consistingg of 2 task carrds containing pictures of vaarious phenomeena familiar too preschool chhildren: physicaal phenomena (dissolving ( of a sugar cube inn water), naturral phenomena (change of seaasons, thundersstorm), and eveeryday activitiees (sleep, perso onal hygiene). Task cards featured two row ws of pictures. The upper, task row consisteed of two pictuures and an em mpty box betweeen them to be filled with a picture p from the row below, options o row, soo that it wouldd connect the first f and the seecond picture in i a meaningfu ful logical sequuence. Therefoore, the first piccture in the tassk row depicted d initial state of o some phenom mena and the last one - the fiinal. The optionns row below ooffered three pictures p from which w a child was w to select from. For exampple, the first piicture in the task row depicteed a glass of waater with a sugar cube inside,, and the last onne - a glass of water w with notthing inside (Fiig. 2).

Fig.2 Cycless test (Item 1, ta ask 1) w represennt a process off dissolving suugar in water. The T three pictuures of Therefore, the task row would the optiions row depiccted various staates of sugar’s dissolving. Children C were asked a to descriibe what they saw s on the picttures, choose the t appropriatee picture from the options roow and explainn their choice. The explanatioon was


consideered adequate if i it was conseccutive in its account of transfformation of thhe phenomenonn from its initiaal state to finall one. The secoond task card featured f the same pictures with just one diffference - the order o of the task row cards w was reversed (F Fig. 3). In otherr words, the seccond task cardd suggested diffferent directionn of the phenom mena.

Fig.3 Cycless test (Item 1, ta ask 2) n so that the reeversal of the task t row woulld require the different d choice from The picturees were chosen the optiions row. A chhild was given one o point for every e adequate answer and coould score up too 28 points. Results d One Out meethod for childdren of the seenior group weere M=10,4, and a for Mean valuues of the Odd childrenn of the pre-school group – M=10,9. M All chhildren solved the t tasks by em mploying categgorization basedd upon either eessential, or noonessential attrributes of the introduced i objjects: when theey couldn’t determine the esssential feature or come up with w a general term, they baased their geneeralization upoon non-essentiaal attributes (ssuch as e in a fruit f category some childrenn related an appple to a ball because b color, sshape, size andd other). For example, they booth were roundd and decided a pear the odd one out becauuse “it wasn’t round”; r in a shoes category decided d men booots odd one out because th hey “didn’t fit women’s feeet”, etc. Anothher interestingg instance wass when childrenn couldn’t dettermine the esssential attributes and excludeed an object due d to its uniquue features absent in other oobjects. It madee it difficult fo or them to findd the general term t for the otther objects in a set because of the absencee of common features f necesssary for proper categorizationn. The followinng is a typical example. e A chiild was shown four cards deppicting differen nt cars: fire truuck, ambulancee, police car annd a sedan. In this t test, a sedaan was b named Nikkita N. (5;7) chhosen a the oddd one out, becaause other threee cars belongedd to emergencyy services. A boy picture of a fire truckk. When asked d, “what generral term wouldd apply to the rest 3 cars”, he h took some time t to t Then he h was asked, “why did you choose the firre tuck” he expplained think annd then answeered, “not fire trucks”. “becausse it has a laadder, other cars c don’t”. Most M children used generalizations based upon essential and nonesseential attributes. Children of both senior annd pre-school groups g experiennced difficultiees in finding thhe right generall term for varioous groups of objects. o The mean values of the Cycles C methodd were M=6,1 for f the childrenn of senior kinndergarten grouup, and M=7,9 for the childreen of pre-schoo ol group. Durinng the assessmeent of dialecticc structures’ deevelopment it became b w the reverseed order of tassk row picturess posed the moost difficulties for children. Despite D clear thhat operating with the reversal many chiildren persisted d with their prrevious answerrs. Instead of changing c their choice and theerefore m the options row they defended their prevvious choice claiming c that thhe new selectinng an appropriaate picture from order oof test row pictures p was “incorrect” “ or “mixed up”. This can bee illustrated by b children’s typical t

121

122


performance on “fire burning” test series. The direct order of these series was bonfire – (empty box) – embers. The images in the options row were firewood, bucket of water, and matches. The reversed order in the second test card was embers – (empty box) – bonfire. A child was asked to choose from the options row the appropriate picture to go in the empty box. Lisa had chosen a picture depicting a bucket of water, explaining that it was “to put out the bonfire”. When asked to explain how it would happen she answered “First the firewood burns, then we put the bonfire out by throwing water on it, and then we have embers”. The experimenter drew Lisa’s attention to the order of pictures, noting that embers come first and, therefore, she should begin her story from them. However, she insisted that she said everything right. Such was the typical children’s response when they gave incorrect answers. The Pearson's correlation coefficient between variables of Cycles and Odd One Out experiments was r = 0,46 for the children of senior group, and r = 0,086 for the children of pre-school group. Furthermore, the use of t-statistics showed significant differences between the children of senior and pre-school groups in their performance on Cycles method (p=0,05; t=0,04). This finding was confirmed by the use of Mann — Whitney Utest (p=0,05; u=0,026). These values support our hypothesis that by the senior kindergarten age dialectic cognition acts as a separate cognitive process based upon dialectic logic, while generalization is a tool of formal logic. Conclusion 1. The results support our hypothesis that the development of dialectics and formal logic can be viewed as a development of two separate cognitive processes. This hypothesis requires further scientific studies. 2. Based upon the obtained data we can conclude that the development of dialectical thinking takes place between the ages of 4-5 to 6-7 years - the sensitive period for this process. Acknowledgements The work was supported by Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund Grant # 13-06-00669

References [1]. [2]. [3]. [4]. [5]. [6]. [7]. [8]. [9].

Veraksa N., Belolutskaya A., Vorobyeva I., Krasheninnikov E., Rachkova E., Shiyan I., Shiyan O. Structural dialectical approach in psychology: problems and research results. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 2013, 2, 65-77. Veraksa, A.N. Symbol as a cognitive tool. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 2013, 1, 57-65. Veraksa, A.N Symbolic mediation in cognitive activity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 2011, 19 (1), 89-102. Bayanova L.F. Vygotsky's Hamlet: The dialectic method and personality psychology Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 2013, 1, 35-42. Shiyan I. Dialectical Thinking as a Mechanism of Construction of Possible Relations for Senior Preschool Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013, 86, 308-311. Belolutskaya A. Structural Flexibility of Thinking in the Context of Dialectical Approach in Psychology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013, 86, 312-317. Pascual-Leone J. Organisimal Processes from Neo-Piagetian Theories: A Dialectical Causal Account of Cognitive Development// International Journal of Psychology, 1987. - ʋ22. – Ɋ.535-536. Morra S., Govvo C., Marini Z., Sheese R. Cognitive development. Neo-Piagetian perspectives. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. Piaget J. Les Formes Elementaires de la Dialectique. Paris, 1980.


[10]. Veraksa N., Zadadaev S. Dialectical thinking and W-measure of development of two-dimensional dialectical structure. Russian State University for the Humanities Bulletin. Psychological Studies, 2012, 15 (95), 57-86. [11]. Belopolskaya N. Excluding the objects: Modified diagnostical method. Third edition, Moscow, 2009. [12]. Davydov V.V. Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1990.

123