Diagnostic interviews and Teaching Experiments ,

In strong contrast to the aforementioned. both in methodology and thepry. 1:, tire
work of Piaget and his adherents. A clear rind concise acoount o .hiage'hs
methodology, and its origins. is to be found In Oppcr (1977). from W 3 ~ 6
following extfacts are taken.

in the mid-1920's. at the start of his career. Piaget worked in simons psychologi-

cal laboratory in Paris where one of his duties was to standordm a FffCh ""510"

of a series of Burt's reasoning tests . . . While engaged in his work. P188. 59:
particularly interested in the incorrect responses given by the Younger CP'MN "

decided to carry out cognitive studies in order to dzseover the underlying reasons
for incorrect answers in younger children and correct 0an in older children. (p. 90)

- Since no adequate research method existed for the t ype of studies, he Wished to

conduct. Piaget created his ow. Familiarity with the clinical interviews2 used in
the medical eld led him to design a similar method for the study of reasoning In
children. . . . The essential character of the method is that it constitutes a hypothesistesting situation, permitting the interviewer to infer rapidly a child'svcompetencs in a particular aspect of reasoning by means of observation of his perfor
mance at certain tasks. . . . For the most part the eXperiment invoIVes both a
concrete situation with objects placed in front of the child and a verbally presented
problem related to this situation. . . . At the start of each session. the interviewer

has a guiding hypothesis about the types of thinking that the child will engage
in. i . . For each item the interviewer then asks a series of related questions which
are aimed at leading the child to predict. observe. and explain the results of the
manipulations performed on the concrete objects, it is these predictions. observa~
lions and explanations [heal provide useful information on the childs vie: of reality
and his thought prooesses. (pp. 9293)

g The interviewer then tcsls'his original hypothesis on the basis of thc chil't's
verbal responses and actions. if further clarications are required. he asks addia
tional questions or introduces extra Items. Each successive response of the child
Lnus guides the interviewer in his formation of new hypotheses and consequently in
his choice of the subsequent direction of the experiment. (p. 93)

:Foiammu w? muff"! hi: Innlgly medical connotations. I prefer the word

diagnostic. as

6011 6 [USED melanin I . - ' .

howlidgge at 5'! k yam Eh: 0:;W:uo'::lmll through. and hosts. knowledge: and
hence.

Halaman 137
.=:Jiii r was": :L in.
Twins mmdlsv may be contrasted. pom
tted as characteristic of Behaviourist methodology if: .. 7
im? of l Pitcable eltpcriment, we now have Mimi. .,
.t pf \gch are exactly alike Instead of experimental ""43.

. " 7 i *" n} Mai and executed so far as possible according to the '. , t:
in detail. we have experiments in which only the initial situation and f ' .1
a 9 Pnlmd 1} Vance. new hypotheses and procedures being success?
introducedaccording to the results of the experiment thus far. instead of the
outcome being measured in standardised units. it is presented descriptively.
Often extracts. from the childs verbal responses are given verbatim, together
With the experimenter's inference therefrom. Fourthly. in the behaviourist m'ethodology the experimental results are usually given in the form of some kind. of
array of gures. such as a correlation matrix, table of means and standard
- deviations, analysis of variance. together with signicance levelsnfroin which .
conclusions are deriVed that the experimental hypothesis as stated at the outSet if _
thereby conrmed or inrmed. In contrast. the outcome of a Piagetian experiment is presented in the form of some general-statement giving a synthesis or
overviewof the nal state of the experimenter's thinking. resulting from the
successive modications of his original hypothesis during the course of the
experiment. And nally, the Piagetian approach is much more time-consuming,
relative to the number of subjects from whom data is collected. than the behaviourist. The amount of experimenters' time that it takes is a major practical
difculty in Piagetian-style research.

What are the implicitassumptions underlying these sharply contrasted paradigms? Cententmting on those most directly relevant to the present volume, and
over-simplifying for the sake of emphasis, i suggest that these may be summarised as follows: Behaviourlst Paradigm. What we are interested in is subjects' publicly observable behaviour, and this is shopcd by conditions extemnl to_the subyects. These

conditions can be dened operatipnaily, and controlled With a fair degree of

. . n b an expcdmcntqr or tsiichcr. Factors intcmalto the subJects. and

prems'w y l t individuals. are random in their occurrence and can
penalty those parttcu at 0 . (A l h ' u ..
therefore be eliminated by appropdate stat's 14a ec nio es.

t are interested in is the mental recesses that

Piageilan Parad'gin".x:::r$ble behaviour. and these are mini; the result of

give rise to the subjecthe subject, These v'ary batween different individuals, and

Precesses mm! i0 . - a] [different ages; and the differences are at. impor-

between the 53" "d'vd . ' mi lo wot with individuals in I

, To investigate these We n .

tant as the likenesscsz h he experimenter. making WWW about mgr

. onetonne relationshil w _ ~ , a mm, of 0mm; W .n - as which are tested agains V 71,
tyinzme! rows . .- ,

Halaman 138
Lu ' W

 TEACHING EXPERlMENTs
Classical Piagetinn theory takes little account of the functrormfins'rucion. In
the context of education. however. the relations between ms c ton an warni
ins, together with the nature and quality 0f "5 mmmg' are among 0" Ch?
areas of concern. So it is not surprising that some researchers have based their
investigations on the methodology of the teaching experiment. Among these are
oonstructivists. r
theA summary of six principles of constructivism is gin by suffer RlChmdS.
and von Glassersfeldt (1979). Among me key features. as there Presented, are
the following.
Knowledge is viewed as pertaining to invariances in the living organism's experience rather than to entities. structures. and events in an lndepently existing world.
.Mental operations are pan of a total structure. and structure is seen in the organisation of operations. Different surface behaviours of n child may be interpreted as
springing from the same cognitive structure. The structure of the learning environment must be considered within two frames of reference. 0n the one hand there are
the operational systems controlling the childs experiences and. or the other. there
is the content to be learnt. Concepts. structures. skills, or anything that is consid~
cred knowledge' cannot be conveyed ready-made from teacher to student or from
sender to receiver. They have to be built up, piece by piece. out of elements which
must be available to the subject. (p. 2930
Readers will not fail to notice the close correspondence between the ideas in
the previous quote and those described in 'he present volume. When rst reading
the paper from which theso extracts were quoted, i found myself in the position
of Moliere's character in Le Bourgoir Gentilhomme, who discovorod that he had
been speaking prose all his life without knowing it. In my own case, I have been

a constructivist since the early l9605 (Skemp, I962), although I did not meet this
term until the mid 1970s. And it was not until more recently (Skemp, 1985) that]
personally experienced the value of the teaching experiment.
I This methodology may be regarded as an extension of that of the diagnostic
lntervrew, in which the purpose is to make and test hypotheses not only about the
nature of a child's thinking at a particular timeI but about how this thinking
develops from one stage to another, It is summarised oy Steffe (1977) as follows:
1. Daily teaching of small groups of children by the experimenters.
2. intensive observation of individual children as they engage in mathe
matieal behaviour,
3. prolonged inVclvement with the same children over periods ranging fmm
about six weeks to the academic year,
4. clinical interviews with children, and
5. detailed rt cords of observations through audio-video taping and the writ
ten work if the children.

Halaman 139

The foregoing accords very well with the present model. A major emphasis of
the latter is that what we can learn with understanding depends on our amenity
. available schemes. These schemas cannot be observed directly in children. or
other leamers:.they have to be inferred from their responses. The kind of re
sponses we need for this purpose,-whlch includes distinguishing between-what
has been learned with understanding and what has just been memorised as a ruleY
are not written responses to standardised questions, but the kind that are obtained
in the situation of the diagnostic interview. So the combination of a teaching

Situation with the diagnostic interview offers opportunities for inferences both
about the states of children's schemes at various stages in their learning. and
about the processes by which they progress from one stage to another.
This line of drinking also makes good sense in relation to education. Just as a
major eld in which the natural sciences prove their worth is in what they can
help us to achieve in the physical world. so a major eld in which type 2 theories
must show their worth is that of education. For this, researches based on teaching
experiments get off to a good start.
My own experiences in this eld suggest that from an approach very like that
described by Steffe, but less intensive, much of value can still be learned. From
1980 to 1985 a colleague and l were working for one morning a week in schools
with children aged Sll, our main purpose being the eld testing and revision
where necessary of teaching methods and materials based on the theory described
in the present book. The position taken was that although there is always more
that we need to know about how children learn mathematics. the time had now
arrived whcn there would be more benet to the children from translating into
Classroom practice the theory as at present developed than from attempts to
polish the theory still further. This was still a teaching experiment, although the
purpose was one of curriculum testing and development rather than theory construction; and i found the experience illuminating and rewarding. I
The teaching situations were of three main categories: discussions led by the
' experimenter, activities by the children working together in pairs or small
groups. and mathematical games for 26 players. Childrens informal discus
sions with each other abost what they were doing, and also the explanations they
- gave to each other, both as help and as justication (e.g., for a move they had
trade in a game) were very rewarding, Important also was their use of mathe

matically structured materials. Much of what we learned was from observations

of this kind, and subsequent discussions with the teaChers involVed. Sometimes
we also asked the children questions, such as "Can you explain how you knew
that?"
i
Observation I _
Th, expcmcmer (Ainley, 1.. personal communication, l985) was working with
three veyearolds. She asked them if they could tell her what 5 + 4 was. The
rst child used counters. He counted out ve of these, then he counted out four V
a
. .u.

Halaman 140

_ and fatally he counted them all. The second child -

1% method of counting on. The third child looked at tiling

children love the same answer, nine. My colleague asked the third child
could see what the others did to get the answer, but I couldn't see what you aid
Could you tell me?"l'lhe child replied Five and ve is ten, Four is one less than
live. so the answer is one less: nine."
Interpretation. The rst two children were both at the stage of schema building, using mode 1 (physical experience). The second had a more advanced model
than the rst because counting on implies at least an intuitive awareness that the
rst of the sets to be united is part of the set resulting from this union. The third
had a relational schema, from which he was able to extrapolate from something

he already knew (5 + 5 = 10) to construct a new result(5 + 4 = 9). The chain of

i::ference is good for a ve year old. This and many other observations have led
me to view with admiration the level of thinking of which children are capable, if
we allow them to preserve their natural abilities (Ginsberg, 1977).

An interesting foiiowon from Observation l was provided by a teaching

experiment several months later with different children, in a different school.
Observation II
in this activity, 1 was concerned with developing uent recall of addition facts.
(Please remember 'he dis'inction between this and rote learning.) The learning
situation was provided by a game- for two. One piayertumcd over cards on which
were written all pairs of number additions, from i + l to 5 + 5. This player had
to say the result if he could; the other had a linear slide rule, which he used either
to check the result if there was doubt or to obtain it if necessary. (A linear slide
mic is made from two number tracks side by side. it is a physical embodiment of

counting on.) The teacher had given me two children whom he described as
backward seven~year-old,s.

.The child with the cards had given the co'rcct result for 5 + 5: and it Chi:an
that the next card he turned over was 4 + 5. He did not know the answer to this.
Instead of telling him, his partner said Well'you know 5 + 5, dont you?
Youve just said it. So what's 4 + 5?"

Interpretation. lio so backward. the latter child] Not only did he have a relational schema. but he had an intuitive grasp of the difference between helping

someone to construct his own result, and just telling him. Almost, a seven year

old constructivist! When 1 related this to their teacher afterwards, he said Oh

. yes, he can do things if he wants. But he just doesnt try." l restrained myself
. Mm saying that this might depend on whether he found the work interesting or

' mend, theory construction and curriculum development must be comple-

3 7 Lian professionalism on the part of teachers themselves. it is

Halaman : 141

10. TYPE 1 AND 2 THEORIES 141

therefore encouraging to report that our experience of working in this way over a

number of years has also given rise to the development of a approach to school-

based inservice cduealion which shows gond promise. In this. teachersdevelop

their own theoretical understanding in close relation to their own experienEe and

classroom needs, working with their own ehildren in their own classrponrs. This
has been described elsewhere (Skemp, 1983). .' . 1 _ 2