PRIMER ESCENARIO

Phase I of this study was conducted for the purpose of providing a brief and oractical assessment of each child s level of conservation, no conservation or conservation. The

children were individually administered a test to determine if they were nonconservers or conservers.

Testing Instruments U s e d . The investigator individually administered a standardized conservation test, The Concept Assessment Kit--Conservation (Goldschmid and Bentler, 1968) to each child, either inside the classroom or in a private room outside the classroom. All children were given Form A. Those who correctly responded to all items on Form A were also given Form C in one test session.

Conservation was assessed by observing each child's b e ­ havior and by testing their understanding and explanation of the conservation principle. To assure that each child was a nonconserver or conserver, each child had two response scores of behavior and explanation. Conservation behavior is defined as the child's judgment of the quantity of two objects, one of which has been transformed by the investigator, whereas comprehension or understanding is assessed by the child's explanation for the judgment (Goldschmid and Bentler, 1968).

The Conservation Tasks. According to Goldschmid and Bentler's test manual directions, each child's level of con­ servation is assessed in eight areas: (Form A) substance, weight, continuous quantity, discontinuous quantity, number,

two-dimensional space, and (Form C) area and length. Each of these areas was used by the investigator to assess con­ servation. Each child was asked to compare the volume, length, or substance of two objects after the shape, form, or size of one of the objects was transformed by the investigator.

Prior to each transformation, the investigator permitted each child to make changes in objects which (in the child's opinion) were unequal in size, weight, or volume. When the child was satisfied that the two objects were equal, the in­ vestigator manipulated one of the objects by transforming its

shape, form, or position. For example, the child was shown two balls of Play-Doh and was asked, "Is there as much Play- Doh in this ball (demonstrated by pointing) as in that one, or does one have more?" The investigator recorded the child's behavior response. The investigator instructed the child to watch what was happening to one of the balls. The investigator

then rolled one ball into the shape of a hot dog and asked the child, "Is there as much Play-Doh in this one (ball) as in that one (hot dog) or does one have more?" After the child had made a behavior response, the investigator asked, "Why?" as an explanation response. Each child's behavior and expla­ nation responses were taped on a portable cassette tape r e ­ corder and written on standardized scoring forms.

Procedure for Scoring Conservation Tasks. A correct behavior response was scored if the child stated that the two objects were the same. If the child said they were not the same or that one had more than the other, the response was scored as incorrect. A correct explanation response was scored correct only if the child's conservation behavior was scored as correct and if one or more of the following con­

servation principles was understood (Goldschmid and Bentler,1968) 1) Invariant quantity explanations such as ' You did not add or

subtract anything; they were the same before and you did not change the weight; it is the same number." 2) Compensation explanations such as "This glass is taller, but it is also thinner; the hot dog is longer, but it is also thinner."

3) Reversibility explanations such as "If we put it back into this glass, it would be the same; if we made this back into a ball, it would be the same."

The explanation responses were scored incorrect if the child's conservation behavior was incorrect and if the answers did not conform to the above conservation principles. For example, if the child gave no explanation at all, a magical explanation such as "My teacher told me or I just know it"; a perceptual explanation such as "They look the same"; a description of part of the procedures such as "You made this into a line, or you poured water into this glass, or you moved the chips out” ; then the response was scored incorrect.

To summarize the scoring procedure, if after the object was manipulated the child gave the correct behavior response and if

the explanation of the response indicated adequate comprehension of the conservation, then the child received one point for that particular conservation area. If the child did not grasp either concept, then the child received zero. For both behavior and explanation responses, a correct response was scored as one and an incorrect response was scored as zero. The child who succeeded on both behavior and explanation in all conservation tasks (Forms A and C) was classified as a conserver. The child who did not

succeed on all conservation tasks on Form A was classified as a nonconserver.