UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of the operative theory of memory King, Mary Ann 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 K55.pdf [ 3.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094761.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094761-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094761-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094761-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094761-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094761-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094761-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094761-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094761.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MARY B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of P OPERATIVE THEORY OF MEMORY by ANN KING •ince Edward I s l a n d , 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1978 (c)Mary Ann King, 19 78 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I a g ree t h a t the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for r e f e r e n c e and s t udy . I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department o r by his representat ives. It is understood that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f th i s thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psychology  The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2 0 7 5 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V 6 T 1W5 Dec. 12, 1978 Date A b s t r a c t The study was concerned with the phenomenon of regressed memories w i t h -i n the context of the operative theory of memory (Piaget and Inhelder, 1973). Four p i c t u r e s representing operative concepts of v a r y i n g d i f f i c u l t y were pre-sented to Grade Three c h i l d r e n . Memory f o r these concepts was assessed through reproduction and r e c o g n i t i o n tasks. In a d d i t i o n , memory f o r the more a r b i t r a r y or f i g u r a t i v e aspects of the s t i m u l i was t e s t e d . Operative memory f i n d i n g s f o r three of the p i c t u r e s c o i n c i d e d w i t h r e s u l t s p r e v i o u s l y reported by Liben (1975). A d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of memory was found f o r the fou r t h stimulus representing the most o p e r a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t concept. This l a t t e r f i n d i n g appeared to f i t p r e d i c t i o n s from the f i g u r a t i v e memory hypo-t h e s i s proposed by Furth, Ross, and Youniss (1974). I n c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n -ships were evident between assessment and operative memory performance and the d i s t i n c t i o n between the f i g u r a t i v e and operative aspects of the p i c t u r e s was supported by the f i n d i n g of d i f f e r e n t memory pa t t e r n s f o r both types of i n f o r m a t i o n . Results were discussed i n terms of p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s i n the r o l e of memory ( i n the s t r i c t sense) across the four s t i m u l i , problems w i t h the assessments used to tap c h i l d r e n ' s understanding of the P i a g e t i a n concepts, and the d i f f i c u l t y of p r e d i c t i n g i n advance the operative schemes to which c h i l d r e n a s s i m i l a t e memory s t i m u l i such as p i c t u r e s . F i n a l l y , w h i l e Piaget and Inhelder's theory of memory can account f o r the f i n d i n g s of the present study, explanations derived from'the theory s u f f e r from a l a c k of c l a r i t y and a vagueness of terminology. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i Table of Contents i i i L i s t of Tables i v L i s t of Appendix A Figures v L i s t of Appendix B Figures v i L i s t of Appendix C Tables v i i Acknowledgements I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Method 11 Results 2 2 D i s c u s s i o n 45 References 51 Reference Note 53 Appendix A 54 Appendix B 57 i v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations f o r Males and Females on Pre- and Post- V e r t i c a l i t y and Balance Assessments 24 Table 2 Developmental L e v e l of Subjects' Recognition Choice by Retention Condition and Memory Stimulus 26 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations f o r the Operative Recogni-t i o n Task by Memory Stimulus, Retention C o n d i t i o n , and Time-of-Test 28 Table 4 R e l a t i o n Between Subjects' I n i t i a l and Two Month Recognition Responses 30 Table 5 Developmental L e v e l of Subjects' Reproductions by Retention C o n d i t i o n , Memory Stimulus, and Time-of-Test 32 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations f o r Operative Reproductions by Retention C o n d i t i o n , Memory Stimulus, and Time-of-Test 33 Table 7 R e l a t i o n between Subjects I n i t i a l and Two Month Repro-ductions 36 Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations f o r F i g u r a t i v e Memory Score by Retention C o n d i t i o n , Memory Stimulus, and Time-of-Test 38 Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations f o r F i g u r a t i v e - R e l e v a n t and F i g u r a t i v e - I r r e l e v a n t Scores by Retention Conditions and Time-of-Test 41 Table 10 Pearson Product-Moment C o r r e l a t i o n s R e l a t i n g T o t a l V e r t i c a l -i t y Assessment and Subtasks: Trees and T r a i l o r s w i t h Memory Performance 43 LIST OF APPENDIX A FIGURES Figure 1 V e r t i c a l i t y assessment Figure 2 Balance assessment.... v i LIST OF APPENDIX B FIGURES Page Figure 1 N a i l s 58 Figure 2 Fla g 59 Figure 3 Crane 60 Figure 4 See-saw 61 v i i LIST OF APPENDIX C TABLES Page Table 1 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r V e r t i c a l i t y Assessment 63 Table 2 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Balance Assessment 64 Table 3 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l Operative Recognition Performance 65 Table 4 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l and Two Month Operative Recognition Performance. 66 Table 5 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Two Month Operative Recognition Performance 67 Table 6 Oneway A n a l y s i s of Variance Tests f o r I n i t i a l Operative Reproductions 68 Table 7 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l and Two Month Operative Reproductions 69 Table 8 Oneway A n a l y s i s of Variance Tests f o r Two Month Operative Reproductions 70 Table 9 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l F i g u r a t i v e Memory Results 71 Table 10 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l and Two Month F i g u r a t i v e Memory Results 72 Table 11 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Two Month F i g u r a t i v e Memory Results 73 Table 12 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l F i g u r a t i v e Memory Re s u l t s : Relevant versus I r r e l e v a n t 74 Table 13 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Two Month F i g u r a t i v e Memory Re-s u l t s : Relevant versus I r r e l e v a n t 75 v i i i Acknowledgements The author would l i k e to express her g r a t i t u d e to the members of her Thesis Committee, p a r t i c u l a r l y Dr. John C. Y u i l l e , f o r t h e i r help and encouragement. A s p e c i a l thanks i s a l s o extended to the C h i l l i w a c k School Board and the p r i n c i p a l s and teachers of Bernard and Strathcona Elementary Schools f o r t h e i r cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e w i t h the data c o l l e c t i o n . 1 An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the ope r a t i v e theory of memory I n t e r e s t i n memory research has Had a long h i s t o r y i n psychology. One of the o l d e s t p h i l o s o p h i c a l and experimental t r a d i t i o n s i n the study of memory i s a s s o c i a t i o n i s m . According to t h i s view, memory c o n s i s t s of sen-sory information that i s connected or a s s o c i a t e d i n the mind. While the a s s o c i a t i o n i s t i c approach to memory remains popular (Anderson and Bower, 1973), a l t e r n a t i v e approaches have developed which r e j e c t many of the mechanistic notions i m p l i c i t i n associationism-namely, that the organism i s a passive r e c i p i e n t of memory content, that r e c a l l i s simply the r e -a c t i v a t i o n of a s s o c i a t i v e networks, and that the process of memory can be st u d i e d i n an i s o l a t e d compartmentalized f a s h i o n . These contemporary approaches to memory have taken a more organismic p e r s p e c t i v e . They empha-s i z e the a c t i v e r o l e of the organism i h determining what i s remembered and how i t i s remembered, the l a r g e l y r e c o n s t r u c t i v e nature of r e c a l l , and the importance of stud y i n g memory i n the context of the organism's per c e p t i o n s , knowledge base, a t t i t u d e s , e t c . Piaget and Inhelder's book, Memory and I n t e l l i g e n c e (19 73) represents an attempt to study memory from such a p e r s p e c t i v e . In t h i s book, they present a s e r i e s of s t u d i e s that examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between memory and the developing c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s of a c h i l d , an approach, h e r e t o f o r e , l a r g e l y neglected. Piaget and Inhelder's i n t e r e s t i n memory and i n t e l l i -gence stems from a long standing concern w i t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between what they have termed the operative and f i g u r a t i v e aspects of c o g n i t i o n . According to P i a g e t , the operative aspect of c o g n i t i o n r e f e r s to "the gener-a l knowledge which a c h i l d develops i n the course of h i s normal experiences and which he h a b i t u a l l y a p p l i e d to various s i t u a t i o n s and t a s k s , " ( F u r t h , Ross and Youniss, 1974, p. 63). The operative aspect i s dynamic, general!-2 z a b l e , and c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the a b i l i t y to transform objects i n the e n v i r o n -ment. These transformations can range from the overt a c t i o n s of the sen-sorimotor p e r i o d to the covert, i n t e r n a l i z e d a c t i o n s of o p e r a t i o n a l thought. The f i g u r a t i v e aspect of c o g n i t i o n r e f e r s to such a c t i v i t i e s as p e r c e p t i o n and imagery, whose r o l e s are not to transform but to provide s t a t i c r e -presentations of r e a l i t y . Both the f i g u r a t i v e and operative components are i n v o l v e d i n memory. Faced w i t h a memorizable s i t u a t i o n , we can d i s t i n g u i s h between two aspects - the "raw" f i g u r a t i v e contents of the event, that are perceived and can be represented as an image, and our understanding of the same event. Since Piaget had already developed the idea that the operative aspect was primary i n d i r e c t i n g such f i g u r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s as perception ( P i a g e t , 1969) and mental imagery (Piaget and Inhelder, 1971), he hypothesized the same r e l a -t i o n s h i p when he1 .turned, to the study of memory, i . e . the f i g u r a t i v e aspect of memory would be "embedded" i n or d i r e c t e d by operative understanding. To i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s hypothesis, Piaget and Inhelder s t u d i e d c h i l d r e n ' s memories f o r a v a r i e t y of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h such notions as h o r i z o n t a l i t y , causal processes, and numerical and s p a t i a l correspondence. While the d e t a i l s v a r i e d somewhat from study to study, the b a s i c methodology used was as f o l l o w s : C h i l d r e n were f i r s t presented w i t h a c o n f i g u r a t i o n , and then brought back at v a r y i n g time i n t e r v a l s ranging from a day to a year, and asked to recognize, to r e c o n s t r u c t , and/or to r e c a l l by means of a drawing, the o r i g i n a l l y seen c o n f i g u r a t i o n . The data from these i n -v e s t i g a t i o n s were analyzed f o r cross-age d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way the s t i m u l i were remembered and f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u b j e c t s ' performance from one t e s t s e s s i o n to the next. 3 In one of the s i m p l e s t experiments, Piaget examined the memories of three to nine year o l d c h i l d r e n f o r a c o n f i g u r a t i o n of s e r i a t e d s t i c k s , ( i . e . s t i c k s of ascending h e i g h t ) . Remembrance was t e s t e d by asking the c h i l d r e n f o r a drawing of what they had seen, one week and e i g h t months a f t e r the i n i t i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of the c o n f i g u r a t i o n . The c h i l d ' s opera-t i o n a l l e v e l of understanding f o r s e r i a t i o n was a l s o assessed at the one week s e s s i o n . A n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e d that memory performance at one week p a r a l l e l e d the c h i l d ' s operative l e v e l of under-standing. The c h i l d r e n tended to reproduce the s e r i e s i n a manner that was s i m i l a r to t h e i r performance on the s e r i a t i o n assessment. A comparison of the one week and e i g h t month memory drawings revealed that 74% of the c h i l d r e n had improved memories f o r the o r i g i n a l l y seen c o n f i g u r a t i o n . These improvements were gradual and appeared to r e f l e c t the substage development of the s e r i a t i o n concept. These, and other s i m i l a r r e s u l t s convinced Piaget and Inhelder that memory does r e f l e c t o p e r ative s t r u c t u r e s . What i s remembered of an event i s dependent upon what the c h i l d understands or to use P i a g e t ' s terminology, upon the relevant a s s i m i l a t i n g schemes that the c h i l d b r i n g s to bear when d e a l i n g w i t h the event. When these operative schemes develop, t h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n the improvement or r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the conserved memory image. Several North American researchers have been i n v o l v e d i n r e p l i c a t i o n s and extension of Piaget and Inhelder's work i n memory. In one of the most extensive s t u d i e s to date, Liben (1975) presented Kindergarten and Grade Four c h i l d r e n w i t h p i c t u r e s expressing the concepts of s e r i a t i o n , h o r i z o n -t a l i t y , and v e r t i c a l i t y . Memory f o r the p i c t u r e s was t e s t e d at one week and f i v e months, by asking the c h i l d r e n f o r drawings of what they remembered and through a s e r i e s of r e c o g n i t i o n choice tasks. The c h i l d r e n were a l s o 4 te s t e d f o r t h e i r o p e r a t i v e understanding of the concepts expressed i n the memory s t i m u l i both before and a f t e r the memory p o r t i o n of the experiment. This was important because the c h i l d ' s o p e rative l e v e l was o f t e n only i n f e r r e d and r a r e l y d i r e c t l y t e s t e d i n Piaget and Inhelder's work. While the cross-age d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way the c h i l d r e n remembered the various p i c t u r e s t i m u l i were c o n s i s t e n t with Piaget and Inhelder's theory, the r e s u l t s from the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t a n a l y s i s were not. C o r r e l a -t i o n s between operative l e v e l and memory performance were weak and incon-s i s t e n t and there was l i t t l e evidence that the occurrance of memory improve-ments c o i n c i d e d w i t h operative development. Another problematic f i n d i n g concerned the f a c t that w h i l e memory pro-gression d i d occur, there were an equal number of memory reg r e s s i o n s . The occurrance of a high number of regressed memories has a l s o been r e p o r t -ed by Furth e t . a l . (1974). In t h i s study, c h i l d r e n from Kindergarten to Grade Four were presented w i t h four p i c t u r e s , two of which represented con-cepts considered to be o p e r a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t f o r c h i l d r e n i n t h i s age range: a t i l t e d b o t t l e , h a l f f i l l e d w i t h l i q u i d , and a f a l l i n g and t u r n i n g s t i c k . R e c a l l was teste d at two hours, two weeks, s i x months, and one year i n t e r v a l s by requesting a memory drawing from the c h i l d r e n . Many of the c h i l d r e n were capable of accurate r e c a l l of the s t i c k and glass p i c t u r e s up to two weeks. A f t e r s i x months, however, they showed massive regressions i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to remember the conceptual or operative aspects of the s t i m u l i , eg. the water l e v e l and the f a l l i n g sequence of the s t i c k . Such f i n d i n g s would appear to be troublesome f o r Piaget and Inhelder's formulation of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of memory to i n t e l l i g e n c e . I f o p e r a t i v i t y f o l l o w s a g e n e r a l l y forward d i r e c t i o n any memory change observed should be progressive r a t h e r than r e g r e s s i v e . 5 Several explanations have been proposed to e x p l a i n the occurrance of regressed memories. Liben (1974) has suggested that some observed regres-sions (and improvements) may be a r t i f a c t of measurement e r r o r s and/or changes i n s u b j e c t s ' a t t e n t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , e t c . between r e c a l l s e s s i o n s . Another, more t h e o r e t i c a l e x p l a nation proposed by both Furth e t . a l . (19 74} and Liben (1974) i s that e a r l y memory f o r some events i s under the c o n t r o l of a f i g u r a t i v e f u n c t i o n which enables the c h i l d to remember in f o r m a t i o n that can be i n advance of h i s operative l e v e l of understanding. Through time t h i s memory trac e i s schematized to r e f l e c t the c h i l d ' s c u r r e n t operative m a t u r i t y . According to t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n , regressed memories occur because c h i l d r e n at i n i t i a l r e c a l l sessions are reproducing a f i g u r a -t i v e image of the memory event. For some c h i l d r e n these r e c a l l r e s u l t s present an i n f l a t e d p i c t u r e of h i s operative understanding. At l a t e r s e s s i o n s , the f i g u r a t i v e i m i t a t i o n fades and the c h i l d i s more l i k e l y to be r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the event r e l y i n g on h i s c u r r e n t c o g n i t i v e r e p e r t o i r e . Unless the rel e v a n t c o g n i t i v e schemes are mature, memory performance w i l l be poorer r e l a t i v e to the e a r l i e r s e s s i o n . The only research to date that has d i r e c t l y t e s t e d the f i g u r a t i v e memory explanation f o r regressed memories i s a recent study by Liben (Note 1). In t h i s study, Liben asked f i r s t and f o u r t h graders, none of whom had an operative grasp or h o r i z o n t a l i t y , to remember p i c t u r e s based on t h i s concept. In one c o n d i t i o n , the c h i l d r e n drew the h o r i z o n t a l e l e -ments i n the memory s t i m u l i themselves. They were then asked to remember t h e i r f i n i s h e d drawing, a stimulus that matched t h e i r operative l e v e l . In the second c o n d i t i o n , the p i c t u r e stimulus was provided by the e x p e r i -menter and was i n advance of the c h i l d r e n ' s operative l e v e l . R e c a l l was tes t e d a week and seven months a f t e r i n i t i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of the memory 6 stimulus. Liben hypothesized that the c h i l d r e n asked to remember the experimen-t e r ' s drawing would produce more advanced drawings at one week than c h i l d r e n i n the drawing constructed c o n d i t i o n . By seven months, however, t h e i r memories should have regressed. In c o n t r a s t , the c h i l d r e n i n the drawing constructed c o n d i t i o n should not show f i g u r a t i v e l y i n f l a t e d memories and thus l i t t l e r e g r e s s i o n i n memory.performance should be evident over the seven month r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l . The f o u r t h grade data were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r e d i c t e d p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s . Performance i n the drawing provided group d i d decrease s i g n i f i -c a n t l y between the two r e c a l l sessions but d i d not change s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the drawing-constructed group. The f i r s t grade data d i d not support Liben's hypothesis, however. Results from both c o n d i t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the one week and seven month s e s s i o n . According to Liben, these f i n d i n g s suggest that o l d e r c h i l d r e n are b e t t e r than younger c h i l d r e n at r e t a i n i n g a stimulus that i s more advanced than t h e i r own conceptual l e v e l . This s k i l l may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e i r greater experience w i t h classroom tasks that r e q u i r e the copying and remem-brance of new i n f o r m a t i o n . I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e that t h i s a b i l i t y i s due to the o l d e r c h i l d r e n ' s t r a n s i t i o n a l understanding of the concept being tapped i n the memory stimulus. In other words, c h i l d r e n may not only remember what they can understand, as Piaget has argued, but a l s o what they can p o t e n t i a l l y understand. The poorer performance of the f i r s t graders would r e f l e c t t h e i r rudimentary grasp of Euclidean s p a t i a l concepts. 7 I t should be noted that both explanations c o n t r a d i c t Piaget and I n -helder's f o r m u l a t i o n of the memory-operativity r e l a t i o n . According to Piaget and Inhelder the f i g u r a t i v e aspects of memory are "embedded" i n o p e r a t i v i t y so that memory i s always a r e f l e c t i o n of thought and not per-c e p t i o n . As Liben suggests (1977) such a t i g h t i n t e g r a t i o n of memory and thought may be true only i n r e l a t i v e l y extreme cases when the subject's operative l e v e l i s f a r below that tapped by the stimulus. In l e s s extreme s i t u a t i o n s , the c h i l d may be able to extend h i s or her perc e p t i o n even f o r r e l a t i v e l y long periods of time. I t could be argued from the standpoint of Piaget's theory that the remembrance of o p e r a t i v e l y advanced aspects of r e a l i t y would be q u i t e adap-t i v e f o r the developing c h i l d . Even i f such memories were sustained f o r b r i e f time i n t e r v a l s they could p l a y an important r o l e as d i s e q u i l i b r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s and prompts f o r c o g n i t i v e growth. To date the Liben study i s the only research that has been s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned w i t h the idea of the f i g u r a t i v e - o p e r a t i v e continuum i n memory and i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r e x p l a i n i n g the phenomenon of regressed memories. The present study intended to extend Liben's work i n s e v e r a l ways. The memory of Th i r d grade c h i l d r e n was te s t e d using four p i c t u r e s por-t r a y i n g three d i f f e r e n t concepts: s e r i a t i o n , v e r t i c a l i t y f o r s t a t i o n a r y objects and hanging plumb l i n e s adjacent to an i n c l i n e , and the propor-t i o n a l i t y p r i n c i p l e embodied i n the workings of a balance. These concepts had been s e l e c t e d because they represent a c q u i s i t i o n s f o r which c h i l d r e n i n t h i s age range e x h i b i t v a r y i n g degrees of operative m a t u r i t y . S e r i a t i o n , should be a mature op e r a t i v e a c q u i s i t i o n , v e r t i c a l i t y , a t r a n s i t i o n a l one, and p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y , a concept of which they would have only a rudimentary understanding. Using memory s t i m u l i of graded d i f f i c u l t y was intended to 8 provide informat i o n on the question of whether the remembering of opera-t i o n a l l y advanced f i g u r a t i v e knowledge i s a general a b i l i t y which v a r i e s w i t h age or experience or whether i t i s a s p e c i f i c a b i l i t y which v a r i e s as a f u n c t i o n of the l e v e l of the c h i l d ' s understanding of the concepts embodied i n the memory event. In order to confirm the p r e d i c t e d d i f f i c u l t y of each concept, subjects were assessed f o r t h e i r understanding of s e r i a t i o n , v e r t i c a l i t y , and the workings of a balance. Both r e c o g n i t i o n and reproduction tasks were used to assess operative memory performance. Piaget and Inhelder maintain that there i s a develop-mental p r i o r i t y to these two nemonic processes w i t h r e c o g n i t i o n appearing e a r l i e r than reproduction. Both measures were in c l u d e d i n order to deter-mine i f the p a t t e r n of r e t e n t i o n f o r the four s t i m u l i would vary as a f u n c t i o n of the type of memory t e s t . The type of reproduction and r e c o g n i t i o n measures used was s i m i l a r to those developed by Liben (1974, 1975) >although m o d i f i c a t i o n of Liben's r e -production task was introduced. Liben provided much of the o r i g i n a l l y seen stimulus to the c h i l d and only asked f o r a reproduction of the omitted operative elements eg. n a i l s , or 'f l a g . While some cues were provided f o r the c h i l d i n the present study, they were kept to a minimum. This r e -quired the c h i l d to reproduce both the operative elements and t h e i r immediate context, eg. board w i t h n a i l s , h i l l w i t h f l a g , e t c . One problem that has c o n s i s t e n t l y occurred i n previous research r e -q u i r i n g memory reproductions i s that c h i l d r e n are unable to remember the s t i m u l i . This i s e s p e c i a l l y evident when the r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l i s q u i t e long. To minimize t h i s occurrance, c h i l d r e n who reported l a c k of memories were prompted^ by the experimenter i n order to cue r e c a l l and/or to help the c h i l d r e c o n s t r u c t the memory event. 9 Memory for the four stimuli was tested both at an i n i t i a l r ecall ses-sion, (either immediate, one day or one week) and again at two months. The i n i t i a l retention intervals included in the present study were shorter than those usually found in Piagetian-based memory research, since there is some indication that the operatively advanced figurative memory image may be a relative short-lived phenomenon. In the Liben (Note 1) study, for example, i t i s possible that the younger subjects: i n the drawings pro-vided condition may have shown a figurative memory advantage relative to the drawing constructed group i f the f i r s t recall session had occurred before a week. An additional group of subjects in the present study, were given only one recall session at two months. This condition was included to compare long-term memory performance with the results obtained for earlier retention intervals and to assess the possibility of test-retest effects from repeated memory t r i a l s . In addition to examining the pattern of retention for the operative aspects of the stimuli, memory for the arbitrary or figurative information was also studied. Almost a l l of the past Piagetian-based memory research has concentrated on the fate of memory for the operative or conceptual aspects of memory stimuli. There have been two exceptions. Liben (1974) investigated figurative memory change over time in the remembrance of a t i l t e d bottle including memory for details such as bottle orientation, shape, and colour. She was interested in the percentage of figurative im-provements that occurred over time and found that they were less common than operative improvements. Similar findings were found in a study by Voyat (reported in Piaget and Inhelder, 1973). A group of four to seven year old children were shown an array of seriated sticks which varied in colour. While 33% of the subjects showed long-term improvements for the 10 s e r i a t e d aspect of the s t i m u l i , only 13% showed improvements f o r the colo u r s . To gather a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the p a t t e r n of memory r e -t e n t i o n f o r both the a r b i t r a r y and operative aspects, the p i c t u r e s t i m u l i used i n the study were designed to i n c l u d e both colours and p i c t o r i a l d e t a i l s . In order to examine p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s i n memory f o r both types of i n f o r m a t i o n , a d i v i s i o n was made w i t h i n each memory stimulus be-tween those f i g u r a t i v e d e t a i l s that were r e l a t e d to the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the operative concepts expressed i n the drawings and those that were un-r e l a t e d . These two d i v i s i o n s were l a b e l l e d f i g u r a t i v e - r e l e v a n t , and f i g u r a t i v e i r r e l e v a n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Memory f o r the f i g u r a t i v e or a r b i t r a r y i n f o r m a t i o n was assessed through r e c o g n i t i o n tasks i n v o l v i n g both the f i g u r a t i v e - r e l e v a n t and i r r e l e v a n t aspects of each stimulus and by prompt-i n g c olour r e c a l l of these same aspects. An a d d i t i o n a l aspect of the present study i n v o l v e d an examination of the r e l a t i o n between operative assessment and memory performance. The c o r r e l a t i o n a l evidence reported thus f a r i n the l i t e r a t u r e has been weak and i n c o n s i s t e n t (Liben, 1974, 1975), counter to what Piaget and Inhelder's theory would p r e d i c t . A r e p l i c a t i o n of these f i n d i n g s was attempted. 11 M E T H O D Subjects. Subjects were f i f t y - n i n e Grade Three c h i l d r e n (25 males and 34 females) from two elementary schools i n predominantly m i d d l e - c l a s s areas of C h i l l i w a c k , B.C. Three c h i l d r e n were omitted from the sample because they were not a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s . The mean age of the c h i l d r e n at the beginning of the study was eigh t y e a r s , f i v e months (range: e i g h t years, one month to nine years, two months). Design. The design of the memory p o r t i o n of the study was a 4 (Groups) x 4 (Memory stimulus) x 2 (Time-of-Test) incomplete f a c t o r i a l design w i t h repeated measures on the l a s t two f a c t o r s . Subjects were s t r a t i f i e d by sex and randomly assigned so that comparable numbers of males and females were found across a l l four groups. C h i l d r e n i n the f i r s t three c o n d i t i o n s , (Immediate, Day, and Week) were t e s t e d f o r r e c a l l t wice, e i t h e r immediately, one day, or one week a f t e r the i n i t i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of the memory s t i m u l i , and again at two months. The Group X Time-of-Test f a c t o r s were not com-p l e t e l y crossed, however, si n c e s u b j e c t s i n the f o u r t h group (Two months) were only tested at the two month memory se s s i o n . Procedure. Each c h i l d was seen i n d i v i d u a l l y on e i t h e r four or f i v e occasions by one experimenter, who was present f o r a l l s e s s i o n s . The f i r s t and l a s t sessions i n v o l v e d the pre- and p o s t - a d m i n i s t e r i n g of three assessment tasks. The two or three i n t e r v e n i n g sessions c o n s i s t e d of the pre s e n t a t i o n of the four memory s t i m u l i and one or two memory t e s t s depen-ding upon the r e t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n to which the c h i l d had been assigned. The assessment tasks preceded the memory p o r t i o n of the study by two weeks and followed approximately four days to a week a f t e r the c h i l d ' s 12 final memory session. A l l testing was done in a quiet area of the child's school. Subjects were seated at either a desk or a table at right angles to the experimenter, who was also seated. Each session began with the experimenter chatting with the child for about five minutes. The assessment periods lasted about twenty minutes and the recall sessions, approximately twenty-five to forty minutes. Pre-Assessment Tasks. Each child was given three tasks assessing their understanding of seriation, verticality, and the workings of a balance. The order of the three assessments was randomly varied across each subject. The experimenter began by te l l i n g the child: I am now going to ask you to .do some " things for me. They w i l l be like l i t t l e games. None of them w i l l be hard to do, and I think you w i l l have a lot of fun. Seriation assessment. The seriation task was similar to the procedure described by Elkind (1964). and is the identical assessment used by Liben (1975). Two sets of nine sticks, each 1.2 cm. wide were used as materials for the task. Set 1 sticks ranged from 3.6 to 14.4 cm.; Set 2, from 4.2 to 15 cm. In both sets, 1.2 cm. intervals separated sticks. As a pre-liminary test of size discrimination, the child was asked to pick the largest and smallest of five sticks randomly selected from Set 1. Children were then given a l l of the Set 1 sticks and asked, "Can you order these for me from smallest to largest?" If the child was successfuly, he/she was given five more sticks chosen randomly from Set 2 and asked, "Can you put these sticks in with those where you think they belong?" If the child did not succeed with the Set 1 task, five sticks were removed and he/she was asked to put only the remaining four sticks in order. The testing session !3 ':, was ended i f the c h i l d was unable to perform t h i s task. I f the c h i l d was s u c c e s s f u l w i t h the s m a l l e r s e t , the f i v e s t i c k s that had been removed were reintroduced. The c h i l d was f i r s t given three of the s t i c k s and then the f i n a l two, each time being asked to i n c l u d e them i n h i s / h e r s e r i a t e d array. I f the complete set of s t i c k s was s e r i a t e d on t h i s second attempt, the c h i l d , was given f i v e of the Set 2 s t i c k s and asked to i n s e r t them i n h i s / h e r Set 1 s e r i e s . V e r t i c a l i t y assessment. The v e r t i c a l i t y assessment c o n s i s t e d of two tasks adapted from McKay, Brazendale, and Wilson (1972). Both t e s t s are i d e n t i c a l to those used by Liben (1975) and are based on Piaget and Inheld-er' s (1956) work on the development of c h i l d r e n ' s s p a t i a l concepts. The tasks are concerned w i t h the c h i l d ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of both s t a t i o n a r y objects and hanging plumb l i n e s r e l a t i v e to an i n c l i n e . For one of the tasks (Trees), the subject was shown a p i c t u r e of a simple, upright pine tree on f l a t ground. The c h i l d was then given a booklet. On each of three pages of the b o o k l e t , a s i m p l e mountain was depicted ( i s o s c e l e s t r i a n g l e s of 30°, 45° and 60°). The c h i l d was shown each mountain s e p a r a t e l y , and asked, "Can you draw two pine t r e e s , l i k e the one I showed you, one on each s i d e of t h i s mountain, so that they w i l l look n i c e and s t r a i g h t ? " In the second task ( T r a i l o r ) , the s u b j e c t was f i r s t shown a p i c t u r e of a t r a i l o r on f l a t ground w i t h an e l e c t r i c l i g h t b u l b hanging from a wi r e attached to the i n s i d e roof. Subjects were then shown three mountains as i n the Tree task. Depicted on the s i d e of each of the mountains was a t r a i l o r . The experimenter presented each mountain se p a r a t e l y to the c h i l d and s a i d : 14 These t r a i l o r s are l i k e the t r a i l o r I showed you. You can see that there i s n ' t any l i g h t b u l b i n s i d e , though. Do you t h i n k you can draw a s t r i n g and l i g h t b u l b i n s i d e the t r a i l o r s , the way the s t r i n g and l i g h t b u l b would look, i f the t r a i l o r s were going up and down the mountain, l i k e t h i s ? * While p r e s e n t a t i o n of the three mountains always followed the order from gradual to steepest, the order of each task (Trees or T r a i l o r s ) was v a r i e d randomly across s u b j e c t s . For i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the task see Figure 1, Appendix A. Balance assessment. M a t e r i a l s f o r the balance assessment c o n s i s t e d of a wooden balance and a c o l l e c t i o n of s t e e l weights. In each arm of the balance, nine cuphooks had been placed at v a r y i n g p o s i t i o n s from the f u l -crum. The weights were s m a l l s i x - s i d e d pieces of metal weighing one k i l o -gram. At the top of each weight, there was a small hook, which enabled the weights to be hung on the balance and strung together to form c o l l e c t i o n s of two or more kilograms. The experimenter began by p l a c i n g the balance i n f r o n t of the c h i l d and demonstrating that the arms could be t i p p e d i f a f i n g e r or weight was a p p l i e d to e i t h e r s i d e . The experimenter then brought out the weights and t o l d the c h i l d that each weight weighed one k i l o g r a m and could be hooked together. The c h i l d was encouraged to t r y hooking the weights together to form s t r i n g s of two and three kilograms. F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the nature of the taskiwas e x p l a i n e d to the c h i l d : We are going to play a k i n d of game, now, that w i l l use the balance, and these weights. What I am going to do i s to h o l d up d i f f e r e n t amounts of weights i n each hand, and to p o s i t i o n them along the arms of the balance l i k e t h i s . (A *In the i n s t r u c t i o n used by Liben (1975), the word "wire", was used i n s t e a d of " s t r i n g " . I t was f e l t by the present i n v e s t i g a t o r , that the n o t i o n of wire may confuse the c h i l d i n t o t h i n k i n g that the l i g h t b u l b was somehow s t i f f and immoveable even on an i n c l i n e . The word " s t r i n g " was s u b s t i t u t e d to avoid t h i s p o s s i b l e connotation. 15 one k i l o g r a m weight was h e l d i n each hand of the experimenter, and a l i g n e d along s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s on e i t h e r arm of the balance.) What I would l i k e you to do i s to look c a r e f u l l y at the amount of weight I have i n each of my hands, and to t r y to f i g u r e out what would happen i f I were to hang these weights on these hooks. Would the balance stay s t r a i g h t out l i k e i t i s now, or would i t t i p ? Do you t h i n k you understand? Let's play-'.... one p r a c t i c e game to see i f you do. The experimenter then h e l d one weight i n e i t h e r hand, i n c l e a r view of the c h i l d , and p o s i t i o n e d them at the extreme ends of each balance arm. "What do you t h i n k w i l l happen i f I put t h i s one k i l o g r a m weight here and the other weight here? W i l l the balance stay the same or w i l l i t t i p ? " I f the c h i l d suggested the balance would t i p , the experimenter asked the c h i l d to i n d i c a t e which s i d e he/she thought would be t i p p e d down. A f t e r the c h i l d gave h i s / h e r answer, the experimenter hooked the weights on the balance and confirmed or discontinued the c h i l d ' s p r e d i c t i o n . The a c t u a l assessment c o n s i s t e d of seventeen s i t u a t i o n s (See Figure 2, Appendix A). A l l followed the format described above f o r the p r a c t i c e t r i a l except that the c h i l d was given no feedback as to the correctness or i n c o r r e c t n e s s of h i s / h e r p r e d i c t i o n . The weights were only a l i g n e d against the hooks but were never a c t u a l l y hung on the balance. P r e s e n t a t i o n of the memory s t i m u l i . The four p i c t u r e s t i m u l i used i n the study were drawn i n b l a c k ink on 8%". x 12" sheets of p o s t e r board. Out-l i n e s were f i l l e d i n w i t h f e l t marker c o l o r s . Three of the p i c t u r e s repre-s e n t i n g s e r i a t i o n , and v e r t i c a l i t y f o r both s t a t i o n a r y and hanging plumb l i n e s were s i m i l a r to the N a i l s , F l a g , and Crane p i c t u r e s used by Liben (1975). The F l a g p i c t u r e was adapted somewhat. Liben (a personal communica-t i o n ) suggested that only one f l a g be used i n s t e a d of the two found i n her o r i g i n a l s t i m u l u s . The f o u r t h drawing, See-saw was designed e s p e c i a l l y f o r the present study. I t depicted three e q u a l - s i z e c h i l d r e n , two on e i t h e r 16 sid e of the halfway p o i n t on one si d e of the see-saw and the t h i r d c h i l d seated on the extreme opposite end. For i l l u s t r a t i o n s of each stimulus p i c t u r e , see Figures .1, 2, 3, and 4, Appendix B. Nothing was s a i d to the c h i l d concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the memory s t i m u l i and the assessment tasks. A f t e r e s t a b l i s h i n g rapport w i t h the c h i l d , the experimenter t o l d the s u b j e c t : Today, I am going to show you some p i c t u r e s , I want you to look at each p i c t u r e c a r e f u l l y , and to t r y to remember them because, I am going to ask you about them.later on r The four stimulus p i c t u r e s were then shown to the c h i l d i n random order. A short v e r b a l context was provided w i t h each p i c t u r e . N a i l s . Have you ever used a hammer to hammer some n a i l s ? This p i c t u r e shows the way a wooden board looks a f t e r someone has hammered some n a i l s i n t o i t . Look at the p i c t u r e c a r e f u l l y so you can remember what i t looks l i k e . F l a g . Do you know that when ex p l o r e r s f i n d new land, they u s u a l l y put a f l a g i n t o the ground to c l a i m the land, to say i t belongs to t h e i r country? This p i c t u r e shows how i t looked when an e x p l o r e r t r i e d to c l a i m a h i l l but couldn't manage to get a l l the way to the top. Here i s the p i c t u r e . Look at i t c a r e f u l l y so you can remember i t . Crane. Have you ever seen a b u i l d i n g being torn down. A machine that i s of t e n used to tea r down b u i l d i n g s i s a crane. This p i c t u r e shows a crane going up a h i l l to knock down a house. Look at the p i c t u r e c a r e f u l l y so you can remember i t . See-saw. Have you ever played i n a playground that had swings and a t e e t e r - t o t t e r . This p i c t u r e shows three c h i l d r e n p l a y i n g on the t e e t e r - t o t t e r . They are a l l i n the same grade and they are a l l the same s i z e and weight. This i s the way they are p l a y i n g on the t e e t e r - t o t t e r . Look at the p i c t u r e c a r e f u l l y so you can remember i t . Memory sessions. The procedure f o r a l l memory sessions was i d e n t i c a l . An i n t e r f e r e n c e tasks was given to the c h i l d r e n i n the immediate c o n d i t i o n between p r e s e n t a t i o n of the four p i c t u r e s t i m u l i and.the a c t u a l memory t e s t . This task r e q u i r e d the c h i l d to connect a s e r i e s of dots to form an o u t l i n e 17 of a s e a l . The order of the memory t r i a l s f o r each stimulus p i c t u r e f o l l o w e the order of t h e i r i n i t i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n to each su b j e c t . Memory f o r each p i c t u r e was te s t e d by f i r s t p r e s e n t i n g the c h i l d w i t h an 8" x 11" sheet of white paper c o n t a i n i n g the hammer ( e x p l o r e r , house or swings) found i n the o r i g i n a l s timulus. The experimenter began by saying to the c h i l d : Do you remember the p i c t u r e I showed you w i t h the hammer ( e x p l o r e r , house on h i l l , or swings)? Can you f i n i s h t h i s p i c t u r e so that i t looks l i k e the one I showed you? Just draw i t as best as you can. I f the c h i l d i n d i c a t e d that he was unable to r e c a l l the p i c t u r e , the e x p e r i -menter would ask the c h i l d to t r y and remember the s t o r y the experimenter had given about the stimulus cue. In most cases t h i s was s u f f i c i e n t to prompt r e c a l l . I f not, the drawing sheet was put aside and brought out again at the end of the memory s e s s i o n . I f the c h i l d s t i l l had d i f f i c u l t i e s the experimenter encouraged the c h i l d to rec o n s t r u c t the p i c t u r e based on the presented cue, eg. "What do you t h i n k the p i c t u r e could have been about? What are hammers u s u a l l y used f o r ? " Such prompting was e f f e c t i v e i n genera-t i n g some type of r e c a l l i n almost a l l of the remaining s u b j e c t s . For those who s t i l l evidenced no memory, the experimenter t o l d the c h i l d i n a word, what the p i c t u r e had contained, eg. n a i l s , a f l a g , a crane,-., or a t e e t e r -t o t t e r . At t h i s p o i n t most of the remaining subjects remembered the drawing C h i l d r e n who r e q u i r e d some type of r e c a l l prompting were given a red p e n c i l to draw the p a r t i c u l a r p i c t u r e . This was done i n order to d i s t i n g u i s h the reproductions that d i d re q u i r e prompting from those that d i d not. In a d d i -t i o n a record was kept of the memory prompting required f o r each c h i l d . F o llowing the drawing r e c a l l of a stimulus p i c t u r e the experimenter presented the c h i l d w i t h two sets of r e c o g n i t i o n choices concerned w i t h the f i g u r a t i v e r e c a l l of two aspects of the memory s t i m u l u s , e t c . the n a i l s 1 8 and the board i n the N a i l s p i c t u r e . The c h i l d was a l s o asked to r e c a l l the colours of these two aspects. Colour r e c a l l preceded each r e c o g n i t i o n choice. I f the c h i l d was unsure of an answer to e i t h e r the co l o u r or rec o g n i -t i o n t a s k s , he/she was encouraged to give what they considered t h e i r best guess. An example of the p r o t o c o l of the f i g u r a t i v e memory aspect of the r e c a l l f o r the N a i l s stimulus f o l l o w s : Do you remember what co l o u r the n a i l s were i n the p i c t u r e I showed you? One of these four p i c t u r e s shows the type of n a i l s that were i n the p i c t u r e . Can you look at them very c a r e f u l l y and p i c k out the one that shows the type of n a i l s that you remember seeing? Do you remember the co l o u r of the board the n a i l s were hammered i n t o ? Here are four p i c t u r e s . One of these p i c t u r e s shows the board that was i n the p i c t u r e . Look at these p i c t u r e s very c a r e f u l l y and p i c k out the one that you th i n k shows the board that you remember seeing. F i g u r a t i v e aspects of the remaining three memory s t i m u l i i n c l u d e d i n the memory t r i a l s were: The h i l l and f l a g i n the F l a g s t i m u l u s ; the crane and wrecking b a l l i n the the Crane s t i m u l u s ; and the c h i l d r e n and t e e t e r -t o t t e r i n the See-saw p i c t u r e . An operative r e c o g n i t i o n task concluded the memory t r i a l f o r each p i c -ture stimulus. Each set c o n s i s t e d of s i x p i c t u r e s , one of which depicted the o p e r a t i v e l y c o r r e c t memory stimulus o r i g i n a l l y seen by the sub j e c t . The other f i v e choices contained e i t h e r severe or minor operative e r r o r s . Recognition a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the N a i l s , F l a g , and Crane s t i m u l i were s u p p l i e d by Liben. The See saw choices were designed by the present i n v e s t i g a t o r . Post-assessment tasks. The procedure f o r the post-assessment tasks was i d e n t i c a l to that o u t l i n e d f o r the pre-assessment s e s s i o n . 19 Scoring. Assessment r e s u l t s . S e r i a t i o n . Performance on the s e r i a t i o n assessment task was scored on a 8-poing s c a l e developed by Liben (1975) and based on two c r i t e r i a : the s i z e of the l a r g e s t set of s t i c k s c o r r e c t l y s e r i a t e d and the immediacy of r e s u l t s . V e r t i c a l i t y . Responses from the v e r t i c a l i t y assessment were scored according to the degree to which the trees and wires deviated from the true, v e r t i c a l . Those w i t h i n 10° of p e r p e n d i c u l a r were c l a s s i f i e d as h i g h - l e v e l , those w i t h i n 10° of being p e r p e n d i c u l a r to the mountain side were c l a s s i f i e d as l o w - l e v e l , while those f a l l i n g between these two c r i t e r i a were c l a s s i f i e d as m i d - l e v e l . Performance was summarized as the t o t a l number of h i g h - l e v e l responses (range 0-12). Balance. The balance assessment was scored (0-9) depending on the number of times the c h i l d c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t e d the outcome of nine s i t u a t i o n s s e l e c t e d from the seventeen given to the c h i l d . A d e c i s i o n was made to only i n c l u d e the r e s u l t s from these nine t r i a l s s i n c e they represented s i t u a t i o n s the c h i l d was unable to use the s t r a t e g y - the s i d e w i t h the h e a v i e s t weight, t i p s . In other words, they r e q u i r e d an understanding of the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y p r i n c i p l e to be solved c o r r e c t l y . The p a r t i c u l a r t r i a l s used i n the assess-ment are i n d i c a t e d i n Figure 2, Appendix A. Operative memory. N a i l reproductions. Subjects reproduction scores f o r the N a i l s stimu-lus were scored according to a system developed by Liben (1975). A drawing was c l a s s i f i e d as h i g h - l e v e l when i t was e i t h e r a p e r f e c t match to the o r i g i -n a l stimulus or showed a d e f i n i t e s e r i a t e d p a t t e r n . A m i d - l e v e l response 2 0 c o n s i s t e d of a drawing that was b a s i c a l l y s e r i a t e d but contained some minor d i s c r e p a n c i e s , eg. two s t i c k s the same height. A drawing was r a t e d as low-l e v e l i f the d e p i c t i o n of the array was random or showed a s e r i e s of s t i c k s of even height. Drawings without n a i l s or w i t h n a i l s s c a t t e r e d about were rated unscoreable and t r e a t e d as missing data. F l a g and Crane reproductions. The F l a g and Crane drawings were ranked h i g h , mid, or low depending upon the degree to which the f l a g and chain deviated from the t r e e v e r t i c a l . I f these elements were w i t h i n 1 0 ° of c o r r e c t v e r t i c a l i t y , the drawing was rated h i g h - l e v e l , i f w i t h i n 1 0 ° of the perpen- -d i c u l a r , the drawing was r a t e d l o w - l e v e l , and i f the elements were somewhere in-between, the drawing was coded as m i d - l e v e l . Drawings, i n which the f l a g was ommitted or a t r a c t o r drawn i n s t e a d of a crane were considered unscore-able. I f a c h i l d drew the f l a g on top of a mountain, the drawing was a l s o ranked as unscoreable. See-saw reproductions. For the See-saw s t i m u l u s , a h i g h - l e v e l r e -sponses c o n s i s t e d of an accurate reproduction of the 'twice the weight, h a l f the distance from the fulcrum' arrangement of the f i g u r e s on a l e v e l see-saw. A m i d - l e v e l response was one i n which the c h i l d e i t h e r rearranged the f i g u r e s , ommitted/added a f i g u r e , or t i l t e d the balance i n a. manner that t o r r e c t l y represented one of two s t r a t e g i e s : the side w i t h the most weight t i p s , or equal weights on e i t h e r s i d e mean the see-saw i s l e v e l . A low-l e v e l drawing was a reproduction f o r which none of the above was the case, egy a l e v e l balance w i t h one c h i l d on one end and two c h i l d r e n at the other end. F i n a l l y , drawings were c l a s s i f i e d as unscoreable i f the c h i l d gave only a p a r t i a l drawing, eg. h a l f of a see-saw or drew a see-saw from an a e r i a l p e r s p e c t i v e making i t impossible to determine i f the c h i l d meant the balance to be t i p p e d or not. 21 Recognition choices. Subjects' responses on the r e c o g n i t i o n tasks were scored as hi g h - , mid-, or l o w - l e v e l depending upon the r e c o g n i t i o n choice s e l e c t e d . For the purpose of the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , the operative memory r e -s u l t s were transformed i n to a numerical score (High=3, Mid=2, Low=l). I t might be argued that t h i s conversion t r e a t s what should be considered o r -d i n a l data i n an i n t e r v a l f a s h i o n . The advantage of -the - transformation i s that i t allows one to use summary s t a t i s t i c s such as the a n a l y s i s of variance. Whenever p o s s i b l e , however, the p a t t e r n of developmental r e -sponses (High, Mid, and Low) w i l l be reported and discussed i n conjunction w i t h the r e s u l t s from the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses. F i g u r a t i v e memory. F i g u r a t i v e memory scores f o r each stimulus ranged from 0 to 4. Two po i n t s were given f o r each c o r r e c t r e c o g n i t i o n choice and two po i n t s f o r each c o r r e c t response to the colour question. For each stimulus one r e c o g n i t i o n choice and colour r e c a l l question was c l a s s i f i e d as f i g u r a t i v e - r e l e v a n t and the other p a i r as f i g u r a t i v e -i r r e l e v a n t . A f i g u r a t i v e - r e l e v a n t score (0-8) and a f i g u r a t i v e i r r e l e v a n t score (0-8) were obtained f o r each subject by c o l l a p s i n g the r e s u l t s from the two p e r t i n e n t r e c a l l measures across a l l four memory s t i m u l i . 22 R E S U L T S The memory data were analyzed to provide information on s e v e r a l p o i n t s . One iss u e concerned d i f f e r e n c e s i n subject's operative memory across the four r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s , as w e l l as changes across the four s t i m u l i from one r e c a l l s e s s i o n to the next. These comparisons r e l a t e to the n o t i o n that e a r l y r e c a l l of operatively-advanced i n f o r m a t i o n i s a f i g u r a t i v e l y -based reproduction w h i l e l a t e r r e c a l l i s an operatively-based r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . A n a l y s i s of the p a t t e r n of memory across time and memory t r i a l s was al s o important i n r e l a t i o n to a second major aim of the study, namely a comparison of the .course of. memory f o r the operative versus the f i g u r a t i v e or a r b i t r a r y aspects of the memory s t i m u l i . A d d i t i o n a l analyses c a r r i e d out to examine the d i f f e r e n t memorial consequences of f i g u r a t i v e and opera-t i v e information c o n s i s t e d of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the occurrance or non-occurrance ot t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t s and a comparison of the r e c a l l of f i g u r a -t i v e - r e l e v a n t versus f i g u r a t i v e - i r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Information on these questions was obtained through a n a l y s i s of v a r i -ance t e s t s . There i s a co m p l i c a t i o n i n the use of t h i s s t a t i s t i c w i t h both the f i g u r a t i v e and operative memory data, since the Group X Time-of-Test f a c t o r s are not completely crossed. The c h i l d r e n i n the Two month c o n d i t i o n were given only one memory t r i a l w h i l e subjects i n the Immediate, Day, and Week conditions received two. While an o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t was p o s s i b l e , i t d i d not provide answers to some of the s p e c i f i c questions o u t l i n e d above. The r e c o g n i t i o n , reproduction, and f i g u r a t i v e memory data were analyzed, then, i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. One a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t was done on the i n i t i a l memory (Tl) r e s u l t s f o r each group, i . e . immediate vs. day vs. 23 week vs. two months. A second a n a l y s i s s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned w i t h the question of t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t s , was c a r r i e d out on the r e s u l t s obtained at two months (T2) from a l l f our r e t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . F i n a l l y , an a d d i t i o n -a l a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t was done on the r e s u l t s obtained from the two memory t r i a l s (T1-T2) given to subjects i n the Immediate, Day, and Week groups. While the r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s overlapped considerably w i t h the f i n d i n g s obtained from the two previous a n a l y s i s , i t was necessary i n order to determine whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t t i m e - o f - t e s t e f f e c t s or i n t e r -a c t i o n s . The assessment data were analyzed to a s c e r t a i n whether the p r e d i c t e d operative d i f f i c u l t y of the concepts used i n the study were r e f l e c t e d i n the c h i l d r e n ' s assessment r e s u l t s and to determine through c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , i f any r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t e d between assessment and memory per-formance . Operative assessment r e s u l t s . Since a l l s ubjects performed p e r f e c t l y on the s e r i a t i o n task, a n a l y s i s of the assessment r e s u l t s was confined to the v e r t i c a l i t y and balance assessments. Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r males and females on both the pre-and p o s t t e s t s are found i n Table 1. Improvements were evident f o r both assessments from the pre- to p o s t t e s t , and males c o n s i s t e n t l y outperformed females. Results from the two sub tasks of the v e r t i c a l i t y assessment: Trees and T r a i l o r s (see Table 1) i n d i c a t e that the Tree p o r t i o n of the assess-ment was e a s i e r than the T r a i l o r s e c t i o n . 24 Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations f o r Males and Females on Pre- and P o s t - V e r t i c a l i t y and Balance Assessments V e r t i c a l i t y 3 Balance b n P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t T o t a l Male 24 M 6.75 8.042 2.042 3.667 SD 3.24 3.22 1. 78 2.407 Score Female 32 M 3.875 5.5 1.063 2.406 SD 3.03 3.58 1.34 2.107 Subtask Male 24 M SD 3. 77 2.18 4.75 1. 77 Tree Female 32 M SD 2.2 2.3 2.56 2.42 Male 24 M SD 2.7 2.07 3.29 1.92 c T r a i l o r Female 32 M SD 1.59 2.04 2.937 1.933 Maximum Score = 12 ^Maximum score = 9 CMaximum score = 6 25 A n a l y s i s of variance t e s t s were c a r r i e d out on both assessment tasks w i t h Sex and Retention Group as between s u b j e c t - f a c t o r s and Time-of-Test as a w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r . Results of these analyses (see Appendix C, Table 1 and 2) are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p o i n t s described above. For the v e r t i c a l i t y assessment, both Sex F... / o x = 12.804, p=.001 and Time-of-Test, (1,48) F / i / O N=11.661, p=.001 were s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . No other e f f e c t or i n t e r -a c t i o n reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . The same p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s was found w i t h the balance assessment data. Again, Sex, F/n / 0.=6.745, p=.012 and Time-(.l54»; of-Test, F. .=27.73, p=.001 were the only s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s w i t h (1,48; no other e f f e c t or i n t e r a c t i o n reaching s i g n i f i c a n c e . Operative r e c o g n i t i o n r e s u l t s . An i n s p e c t i o n of both the i n i t i a l (Tl) and two month (T2) operative r e c o g n i t i o n r e s u l t s (see Table 2) i n d i c a t e s that r e l a t i v e memory performance f o r the N a i l s , F l a g , and Crane s t i m u l i tended to p a r a l l e l the operative d i f f i c u l t y of the concepts expressed i n these p i c t u r e s . There was a higher percentage of h i g h - l e v e l responses f o r the s e r i a t i o n - b a s e d N a i l s p i c t u r e than f o r the more o p e r a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t , v e r t i c a l i t y - b a s e d F l a g and Crane p i c t u r e s . The f a c t that o v e r a l l performance f o r F l a g was b e t t e r than f o r Crane i s con-s i s t e n t w i t h the assessment data. As was noted above, the concept of v e r t i -c a l i t y i n r e l a t i o n to objects adjacent to an i n c l i n e (Flag) assessed through the Tree subtask, i s a somewhat e a s i e r n o t i o n than v e r t i c a l i t y f o r hanging plumb l i n e s (Crane) assessed i n the T r a i l o r subtask. Moreover, the r e s u l t s presented i n t h i s t a b l e suggest that the p a t t e r n of memory performance across these three memory s t i m u l i remains r e l a t i v e l y constant across a two month i n t e r v a l . Table 2 Developmental L e v e l of Subjects' Recognition Choice by Retention Condition and Memory S t i m u l i Time of Group n Test N a i l F l a g Crane See-: saw H M L H M L H M L H M L Immediate 12 T l 12 0 0 10 2 0 3 4 5 11 0 1 T2 12 0 0 8 4 0 2. 5 5 4 4 4 Day 14 T l 12 0 2 10 4 0 3 5 6 10 1 3 T2 11 0 3 8 6 0 3 6 5 4 5 5 Week 15 T l 15 0 0 10 5 0 5 6 4 8 2 5 T2 11 3 1 8 6 1 6 7 2 4 4 7 Two Month 15 Tl,2 11 1 3 12 3 0 5 2 8 1 9 5 Note: E n t r i e s are number of su b j e c t s . 27 While" s t a b i l i t y appears to be the primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the r e -c o g n i t i o n scores f o r N a i l s , F l a g , and Crane, the pa t t e r n of responses f o r See-saw was qu i t e d i f f e r e n t . Although See-saw represents, supposedly, the most o p e r a t i v e l y advanced concept f o r c h i l d r e n of the age range sampled i n t h i s study, t h i s was not r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r memory performance. Recogni-t i o n scores up to a week were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a high occurrance of h i g h -l e v e l responses, a higher number than was found f o r the Crane sti m u l u s . By two months, subjects r e c o g n i t i o n memory performance had d e c l i n e d con-s i d e r a b l y , however, w i t h most subjects g i v i n g mid- or l o w - l e v e l responses. The developmental l e v e l of each subject's response was coded as a number (1-3). (For a summary of the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n data, see Table 3.) An a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t was run on the i n i t i a l r e c o g n i t i o n data w i t h Sex and Group as between-subject f a c t o r s and Memory stimulus as a w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r . The r e s u l t s of t h i s analy-s i s (see Appendix C, Table 3) are co n s i s t e n t w i t h the observations noted above. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t Memory stimulus e f f e c t , F ^ 1 4 4 ) = ^ " ' - * ' ^ ' p=.001. Tukey (A) comparisons of the stimulus means revealed t h a t memory performance f o r both N a i l s and F l a g was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than f o r Crane (p<.01). While the Group X Stimulus i n t e r a c t i o n was only m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i -f i c a n t , F. =1.806, p=.072, the f a c t that two month performance f o r See-saw d e c l i n e d considerably r e l a t i v e to the e a r l i e r r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s was r e f l e c t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t Group e f f e c t , F. . =3.071, p=.036. Post-(.3,40; hoc t e s t s d i d not r e v e a l any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n Group means however. No other e f f e c t or i n t e r a c t i o n reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . Table 4 presents w i t h i n - s u b j e c t data on the course of memory from the i n i t i a l (Immediate, One Day or One Week) to the second memory session given at Two months. E n t r i e s on the diagonals i n d i c a t e subjects whose memory per-28 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations f o r Operative Recognition Task by Memory Stimulus, Retention C o n d i t i o n , and Time-of-Test Time of Group i i Test Memory Stimulus N a i l F l a g Crane See-saw Immediate 12 T l M 3.00 2.83 1.83 2.83 SD 0.0 .389 .835 .577 T2 M 3.00 2.667 1.75 2.00 SD 0.0 .492 .754 .853 Day 14 T l M 2.714 2.714 1.786 2.5 SD .726 .469 .802 .855 T2 M 2.571 2.571 1.857 1.929 SD .852 .514 .77 .829 Week 15 T l M 3.00 2.667 2.067 2.2 SD 0.0 .48 .799 .941 T2 M 2. 73 • 2.6 2.267 1.8 SD .594 .507 .704 .862 Two Month 15 Tl,2 M 2.53 2.8 1.8 1.733 SD .834 .414 .941 .594 29 formance remained s t a b l e from the f i r s t to the second t r i a l . E n t r i e s above the diagonals i n d i c a t e memory improvements, w h i l e those below are i n c i -dences of memory regres s i o n s . Results f o r the N a i l s and F l a g s t i m u l i i n d i c a t e that the commonest course of memory was s t a b i l i t y or r e g r e s s i o n from a high to a m i d - l e v e l r e -sponse. Performance f o r Crane was more v a r i a b l e w i t h some s t a b i l i t y and an approximately equal occurrance of memory improvements and r e g r e s s i o n s . F i n a l l y , w h i l e some s t a b i l i t y was evident f o r See-saw, there was an equal or greater occurrance of regressed memories. An a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t was c a r r i e d out on the r e c o g n i t i o n data fo r the Immediate, Day, and Week con d i t i o n s using Time-of-Test as a w i t h i n -subject f a c t o r . Memory stimulus was the second w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r and Group was the between-subject f a c t o r . (Sex was c o l l a p s e d across groups since p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s revealed that i t was not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r . ) The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s (see Appendix C, Table 4) showed that Time-of-Test was a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t , F,.. 0 0.=18.00, p=.001 w i t h i n i t i a l r e c o g n i t i o n performance ••: g e n e r a l l y b e t t e r than l a t e r r e s u l t s . The f a c t that memory for See-saw showed the greatest d e c l i n e i n performance across t r i a l s was r e f l e c t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t Time-of-Test X Memory Stimulus i n t e r a c t i o n , F,„ ,.=4.403, p=.006. A breakdown of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n by an a n a l y s i s fo r simple main e f f e c t s revealed that there was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r per-formance at T l than at T2 f o r See-saw, F.- ..,.=21.537, p.< .001. (1,114) The only other e f f e c t to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h i s a n a l y s i s was a Memory Stimulus e f f e c t , F / 1 „ =18.006, p=.001. The Group e f f e c t was not (,i,Jo; s i g n i f i c a n t , F. =1.18, p=.318. This f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the r e s u l t s of the previous a n a l y s i s which i n d i c a t e d that r e c o g n i t i o n memory remained r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e up to a week even f o r the See-saw sti m u l u s . 3D Table 4 R e l a t i o n between Subjects' T l (Immediate, Day, or Week) and T2 (Two Month) Recognition Responses Developmental l e v e l Developmental l e v e l of T2 responses of T l N a i l s F l a g Crane - See-saw responses 1 M H L M H L M H L M H Low (L) 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 2 3 5 1 Med (M) 0 0 0. 1 6 4 2 9 4 1 2 0 High (H) 2 3 34 0 10 20 2 4 5 12 6 11 Note: Table records number of s u b j e c t s . 31 F i n a l l y , a comparison of the T2 data (see Table 2) from the three c o n d i t i o n s r e c e i v i n g an e a r l i e r memory t r i a l w i t h the Two month c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t s d i d not show strong evidence f o r t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t . When an analy-s i s of variance t e s t was done on the T2 data, (see Appendix C, Table 5) the Group e f f e c t d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e , F. =.62, p=.606. The remainder of the f i n d i n g s from t h i s a n a l y s i s , such as a s i g n i f i c a n t Memory stimulus e f f e c t F ^ 144)=19.214, p=.001 are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those already reported. U n l i k e the f i n d i n g s of previous a n a l y s i s , however, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t Sex e f f e c t i n the T2 data, F ^ ^g^=6.468, p=.014 w i t h males outperforming females. To summarize, the r e s u l t s from the operative r e c o g n i t i o n task revealed c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n memory performance across the N a i l , F l a g , and Crane s t i m u l i . The p a t t e r n of memory, i . e . the number of h i g h - , mid-, and l o w - l e v e l responses, f o r these same s t i m u l i , appeared to remain r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e over a two month r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l and across memory t r i a l s . The See-saw s t i m u l u s , however, was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l of memory performance up to a week a f t e r which there was a d e c l i n e i n per-formance. In a d d i t i o n , See-saw was the only stimulus to show a s i g n i f i c a n t drop i n performance from the f i r s t to the second r e c a l l t r i a l s . No t e s t -r e t e s t e f f e c t was evident and sex d i f f e r e n c e s were only found f o r the T2 data. Operative reproduction r e s u l t s . Operative reproduction r e s u l t s f o r the four memory s t i m u l i are found i n Table 5 and 6. These r e s u l t s are based on a l l reproductions i n c l u d i n g those that r e q u i r e d prompting. While the a n a l y s i s of the reproduction data was s i m i l a r to that f o r the r e c o g n i t i o n r e s u l t s , some changes were n e c e s s i -32 Table 5 Developmental L e v e l of Subjects' Reproductions by Retention Condition, Memory Stimulus and Time-of-Test Time of Group 11 Test Memory Stimulus N a i l F l a g Crane See-•saw H M L u* H M L u* H U L u* H M L u* Immediate .' 12 T l 10 2 0 0 6 6 0 0 1 9 0 2 6 0 6 0 - T2 12 0 0 0 4 7 0 1 1 9 0 2 1 6 5 0 Day 14 T l 12 2 0 0 8 4 0 2 2 8 1 3 7 1 6 0 T2 11 1 2 0 7 5 0 2 0 11 1 2 0 6 8 0 Week 15 T l 7 0 5 3 9 4 • 0 2 1 12 0 2 1 6 5 3 T2 10 1 4 0 6 8 0 1 3 10 1 1 0 5 8 2 Two Month 15 Tl,2 5 2 7 1 5 3 0 7 0 10 0 5 0 2 9 4 Note: Table records number of subjects * U=Uncodeable responses Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations f o r Operative Reproductions by Retention C o n d i t i o n , Memory Stimulus, and Time-of-Test Time of Group Test Memory Stimulus '•• <\ n N a i l n Flag n Crane n See-Saw Immediate T l 12 M 2.833 12 2.5 10 2.1 12 2.0 SD .389 .522 .316 1.04 T2 12 M 3.00 11 2.36 10 2.1 12 1.67 SD 0.0 .5 .316 .65 Day T l 14 M 2.7143 12 2.66 11 2.09 14 2.07 SD . 726 .492 .539 .997 T2 14 M • 2.64 12 2.6 12 1.9 14 1.43 SD . 75 .52 .288 .51 Week T l 12 M 2.1667 13 2.7 13 2.07 12 1.67 SD 1.03 .48 .2774 .65 T2 15 M 2.4 14 2.42 14 2.14 13 1.38 SD .91 .51 .534 .51 Two Month Tl,2 14 M 1.857 8 2.62 10 2.0 11 1.18 SD .95 .517 .00 .404 L O L O 34 tat e d due to the occurrance of missing data, i . e . , subjects who could not remember a stimulus or gave an uncodeable drawing. Instead of o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t s on the T l and T2 data, separate oneway a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t s were c a r r i e d out f o r each memory s t i m u l i . Group was the only main e f f e c t since p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e s f o r any of the memory s t i m u l i . An o v e r a l l T1-T2 a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t was a l s o c a r r i e d out f o r the three t e s t - r e t e s t groups, as was done w i t h the r e c o g n i t i o n data. Source t a b l e s f o r a l l s t a t i s t i c s are found i n Appendix C, Table 6, 7, and 8. Many of the f i n d i n g s from Table 5 and 6 were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those r e -ported above. There were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n memory performance across s t i m u l i w i t h more h i g h - l e v e l responses f o r the o p e r a t i v e l y e a s i e r N a i l s p i c t u r e than f o r the more d i f f i c u l t F l a g and Crane s t i m u l i . Again See-saw was the exception w i t h i n i t i a l r e c a l l b e t t e r than that found f o r Crane. In a d d i t i o n , the o v e r a l l p a t t e r n of reproduction responses across r e t e n t i o n i n t e r v a l s and r e c a l l t r i a l s f o r F l a g and Crane was s i m i l a r to that found w i t h the r e c o g n i t i o n data. Several d i f f e r e n c e s between the reproduction and r e c o g n i t i o n r e s u l t s were noted, however. They i n v o l v e d f o r the most par t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s t a b i l i t y of memory performance across time f o r N a i l s and See-saw. While r e c o g n i t i o n performance f o r N a i l s was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by considerable s t a b i l -i t y i n the p a t t e r n of responses over a two month i n t e r v a l , the reproduction data showed a d e c l i n e i n memory at a week and more so at two months. S i m i l a r l y , w h i le the p a t t e r n of r e c o g n i t i o n responses f o r See-saw remained constant up to a week w i t h d e c l i n e evident at two months, t h i s d e c l i n e appeared as e a r l y as a week f o r reproductions. 35 The d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n performance f o r these two s t i m u l i was r e f l e c t e d i n the r e s u l t s from the two a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t s . As expected, the Group f a c t o r was s i g n i f i c a n t i n the T l data f o r N a i l s , F. =4.214, p= (. 3,48; .01, and f o r See-saw, F ^ 45) =^'^> P =-05 (see Appendix C, Table 6). Post-hoc comparisons of both sets of group means i n d i c a t e d t h a t the operative l e v e l of the reproductions was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher at immediate, and one day r e c a l l than that reported at one week. The d e c l i n e i n performance at one week f o r these two s t i m u l i was mirr o r e d , as w e l l , i n the f i n d i n g of a s i g n i f i c a n t Group x Memory stimulus i n t e r a c t i o n i n the T1-T2 a n a l y s i s ( F / ^ m \ = 2 . 4 3 , p=.036 (see Appendix C: Table 7). Simple e f f e c t s t e s t s (.b ,bU; of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i c a t e d that there was both a s i g n i f i c a n t Group e f f e c t f o r N a i l s , (F.„ ,..=3.549, p .05, and f o r See-saw, F / r > r n . =2.486, p<.10. (z,bU; (.2,60; A Duncan M u l t i p l e Range t e s t revealed that Immediate c o n d i t i o n performance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than performance at a week f o r N a i l s (p< .10). No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n Group means was obtained f o r See-saw. While there was some d e c l i n e i n r e c o g n i t i o n performance across memory t r i a l s , the Time-of-Test e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the reproduction data, F ^ 20) = "^ ^ = The reason f o r t h i s l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s apparent from an examination of the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t responses across time (see Table 7). While memory regressions d i d occur f o r N a i l s , F l a g and Crane-; there was more evidence of s t a b i l i t y and memory improvements f o r the reproduction f i n d i n g s than was found across t r i a l s i n the recogni-t i o n data. A f i n d i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the r e c o g n i t i o n data i s the d i s p r o -p o r t i o n a t e number of memory regressions f o r See-saw, r e f l e c t e d i n a s i g n i -f i c a n t Time-of-Test X Memory stimulus i n t e r a c t i o n , F / 0 ,,..=10.867, p=.001 (3-60) (see Appendix C: Table 7). A simple main e f f e c t s t e s t revealed a Time-of-Test e f f e c t f o r See-saw, F,., ...=27.692, p<.001,Jwith performance at (1,60; 36 Table 7 R e l a t i o n Between Subjects T l (Immediate, Day, Week) and T2 (Two Month) Reproductions Development Developmental l e v e l of T2 reproductions l e v e l of N a i l s F l a g Crane See-saw T l reproductions U L M : H U* L M H u* L M. H u* L M H Unscoreable (U) 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 Low (L) 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 .0 0 0 9 5 0 Mid (M) 0 0 0 2 0 . 0 10 4 2 1 25 2 1 3 3 2 High (H) 0 0 2 27 3 0 8 12 0 0 3 2_ 0 5 8 1 Note: Number of subjects i s recorded i n e n t r i e s . * U & uncodeable responses 37 T l b e t t e r than at T2. A f i n a l p o i n t of comparison between the r e c o g n i t i o n on reproduction r e s u l t s concerns the occurrance of t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t s . While no such e f f e c t was found i n the r e c o g n i t i o n data, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t Group e f f e c t i n the T2 data f o r N a i l s , F,_ ..0.=4.214, p=.001 (see Appendix C: (3,40) Table 8), w i t h a Tukey (A) procedure i n d i c a t i n g that the reproductions from the Two month c o n d i t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y poorer than that found f o r the Immediate and Day c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h - r e c e i v e d - a n ^ e a r l i e r memory - t r i a l (p<.05). In conclusion the r e s u l t s from s u b j e c t s ' reproductions were more s i m i l a r than d i s s i m i l a r to the r e s u l t s obtained from t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n memory per-formance. For both measures, there were across stimulus d i f f e r e n c e s i n memory performance and s i m i l a r patterns of r e t e n t i o n f o r F l a g and Crane across two months. Considerable d e c l i n e i n long-term memory f o r See-saw was evident using both measures. Two divergences i n the r e s u l t s from the two memory t e s t s were the evidence of a t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t and the f i n d i n g of considerable l e s s s t a b i l i t y i n reproductions of N a i l s . F i g u r a t i v e memory r e s u l t s . The r e s u l t s of the f i g u r a t i v e memory data f o r each stimulus are r e -ported i n Table 8. As t h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e s f i g u r a t i v e memory performance d i d not vary across memory s t i m u l i . The one s e r i o u s deviation:from t h i s p a t t e r n occurred w i t h Crane. This r e f l e c t s i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , the r e l a t i v e easiness of the colour and r e c o g n i t i o n choices f o r the wrecking b a l l which enabled many of the c h i l d r e n to guess the c o r r e c t answer without r e l y i n g on memory. An examination of the r e s u l t s across r e t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s suggests that memory performance remains r e l a t i v e l y constant up to a day, 38 Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations f o r the F i g u r a t i v e Memory Scores by Retention C o n d i t i o n , Memory Stimulus, and Time-of-Test Time of Memory Stimulus Ni Test N a i l Flag Crane See-Saw Immediate 12 T l M 2.667 2.75 2.417 2.417 SD .888 1.215 .793 .9 T2 M 1.833 1.917 2.417 2.167 SD .937 1.084 . 793 .835 Day 14 T l M 2.643 2.214 2.00 2.214 SD 1.082 .893 .877 .893 T2 M 1.929 2.071 2.143 1.714 SD .917 .997 .77 1.267 Week 15 T l M 1.13 1.33 1. 73 1.2 SD .834 .724 1.033 .862 T2 M 1.73 1.4 2.0 1.667 SD 1. 792 .986 .756 .724 Two Month 15 Tl,2 M 1.33 1.13 1.667 1.067 SD .976 .915 .724 1.033 39 w i t h considerable d e c l i n e i n performance at a week and at two months. The f i n d i n g s from an a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t on the T l data revealed, as expected, no s i g n i f i c a n t Memory stimulus e f f e c t , F.„ ...-,.=.894, p=.446 (3,15b; (see Appendix C, Table 9) but a s i g n i f i c a n t Group e f f e c t , F. -.=17.772, V 3 j -* w p=.001. Tukey (A) p a i r w i s e comparisons of the Group means showed that immedi-ate r e c a l l was s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than that found at a week or two months, (P<.05). When performance across t r i a l s was analyzed (see Appendix C, Table 10) there was no s i g n i f i c a n t Time-of-Test e f f e c t , F, „ =2.246, p=.142. There (.1, Jo; was, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t Group X Time-of-Test i n t e r a c t i o n , F,_ =6.872, (.2, 3o) p=.003. A n a l y s i s by simple main e f f e c t s revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t Group e f f e c t at T l , F. .=15.302, p< .001. A Neuman-Keuls t e s t on the Group means (.z, Jo; i n d i c a t e d that the Immediate and Day c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than that found f o r the Week c o n d i t i o n (p<.05). F i n a l a n a l y s i s of the f i g u r a t i v e data i n v o l v e d a t e s t f o r the occurrance or non-occurrance of t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t s . The r e s u l t s of the T2 a n a l y s i s (see Appendix C: Table 11) d i d r e v e a l a s i g n i f i c a n t Group e f f e c t , F ^ =5.249 ,pp003.. - A' Dunnet T s t a t i s t i c (Winer, 1971, p. 202) on the Group means i n d i c a t e d that performance f o r the Immediate c o n d i t i o n was s i g n i f i -c a n t l y b e t t e r than performance f o r the Two month c o n d i t i o n which d i d not recei v e an e a r l i e r r e c a l l t r i a l (p.< .05). In summary, the r e s u l t s f o r the f i g u r a t i v e data can be contra s t e d w i t h the f i n d i n g s from the operative memory data i n the l a c k of v a r i a t i o n i n memory performance across the four p i c t u r e s t i m u l i , the d e c l i n e i n per-formance a f t e r a day f o r a l l s t i m u l i , and f i n a l l y , f o r c l e a r cut evidence of t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t s across a l l s t i m u l i . 40 Memory f o r the f i g u r a t i v e - r e l e v a n t versus  f i g u r a t i v e - i r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . An a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of the f i g u r a t i v e memory data i n v o l v e d a com-pari s o n of the p a t t e r n of memory f o r the f i g u r a t i v e - r e l e v a n t and f i g u r a t i v e -i r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , (see.Table 9). Two a n a l y s i s of variance t e s t s were c a r r i e d out on the T l and T2 data w i t h the Two month c o n d i t i o n i n c l u d e d i n only the T2 a n a l y s i s . For both analyses, Group was a between-subject f a c t o r and the f i g u r a t i v e score (relev a n t or i r r e l e v a n t ) was a w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c -t o r . The r e s u l t s of these analyses (see Appendix C: Tables 12 and 13) r e -vealed a s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r a t i v e score e f f e c t at both T l , F,. c.=4.971, (.l.jo; p=.032 and T2, F ^ ^^=£>.122, p=.012 w i t h the f i g u r a t i v e r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n remembered b e t t e r than the f i g u r a t i v e - i r r e l e v a n t . The Group e f f e c t was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t i n both analyses: T l , F,„ _„ =15.629, p=.001 and T2, F.„ c„. =5.249, p=.003. No s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s were found i n e i t h e r analyses. Tukey (A) comparisons of the T l Group means revealed t h a t , both the Immediate and Day c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than the Week and Two Month r e s u l t s (p.<.05). , For the T2 data, the Immediate c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than performance f o r the Two Month group (p.< .05). R e l a t i o n s h i p between assessment and memory performance. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between s u b j e c t s ' assessment performance and both operative r e c o g n i t i o n and reproduction memory was assessed through Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s . Since a l l subjects performed p e r f e c t l y on the s e r i a t i o n task, c o r r e l a t i o n between assessment and memory performance f o r N a i l s were precluded. Table 10 presents the r e s u l t s of the c o r r e l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g o v e r a l l v e r t i c a l i t y performance, and the two subtasks: Trees and T r a i l o r s w i t h memory f o r F l a g and Crane. Subjects assessment scores were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations f o r the Figur a t i v e - R e l e v a n t and F i g u r a t i v e - I r r e l v a n t Scores by Retention Group and Time-of-Test Group n Time-of-Test F i g u r a t i v e ' R e l e v a n t 3 .Figurative ' I r r e l e v a n t 3 Immediate ; 112 T l M 5.417 4.833 SD 1. 782 1.642 T2 M 4.75 3.583 SD 2.006 1.505 Day 14 T l M 5.214 3.85 7 SD 1.929 1.099 T2 M 4.286 3.571 SD 1.684 1.284 Week 15 T l M 2.733 2.667 SD 1.534 .976 T2 M 3.467 3.33 SD 1.506 1.543 Two month 15 Tl,2 M 3.00 2.2 SD 1.464 1.082 Maximum score = 8 42 both the T l and T2 memory performance f o r the Immediate, Day, and Week group combined. In a d d i t i o n , the post-assessment scores were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the combined T2 memory r e s u l t s from a l l four r e t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . The p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s from the pre-assessment r e s u l t s are con-s i s t e n t across T l and T2 memory performance. Most of the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a -t i o n s occurred f o r Crane. Both T l r e c o g n i t i o n , r ^ ^ = .2778, p=.04 and r e -productions r ^ g ^ = -2902, p=.048 f o r Crane were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the t o t a l v e r t i c a l i t y assessment scores. T2 r e c o g n i t i o n , r,...,=. 4322, p=.002 and reproduction, r,~ r s=.313, (.41; ( 3 D ; p=.036 r e s u l t s f o r Crane were s i g n i f i c a n t , as w e l l . T h e r e was only one s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r F l a g w i t h performance f o r the Tree subtask s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to Flag reproductions at T l , r 3 3 1 9 , p=.022 and a t T2, r^ 3 y^=.3482, p=.017. The c o r r e l a t i o n s from the two subtasks of the v e r t i c a l i t y assessment suggest much of the p r e d i c t i v e value of the V e r t i c a l i t y scores i s a t t r i -butable to the Tree subtasks and not to T r a i l o r s . The p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g post-assessment and T2 memory performance d i f f e r e d from those j u s t described i n that there were more s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r F l a g than f o r Crane. The v e r t i c a l i t y scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to both the F l a g r e c o g n i t i o n , r = . 3502, p=.004 (.5b; and reproduction, r ^ ^ = .2748, p=.034 r e s u l t s , w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a -t i o n s f o r Crane. Again, the r e s u l t s suggest that the Tree subtasks p r e d i c t s as w e l l , i f not b e t t e r than the t o t a l v e r t i c a l i t y score. Results of the c o r r e l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g the balance assessment and memory performance f o r See-saw were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t except f o r one in s t a n c e . The pre-assessment r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to T2 memory performance f o r the Immediate, Day, and Week groups combined, r ^ ^ = . 3 1 9 2 , p=.021. 43 Table 10 Pearson Product Moment C o r r e l a t i o n s R e l a t i n g T o t a l V e r t i c a l i t y Assessment (VT) and Subtask: (Trees) and ( T r a i l o r ) w i t h Memory Performance f o r F l a g and Crane T l Memory Pre- Recogni- Reproduc- Recogni- Reproduc-assessment t i o n t i o n t i o n t i o n Immediate VT r .2471 .1416 .2778* .2902* + P (.06 ) (.202 ) (.039 ) (.048 ) n 41 37 41 34 Day Tree r .2531 .3319* .313* .1104 4. P (.055 ) (.022 ) (.023 ) (.267 ) i n 41 37 41 34 Week T r a i l o r r .0931 -.1472 .0724 .2 705 P (.281 ) (.192 ) (.326 ) (.061 ) n 41 37 41 34 T2 Memory Immediate VT r .0043 .1937 .4322** . 313* + P (.489 ) (.125 ) (.002 ) (.032 ) n 41 37 41 36 Day Tree r .1304 .3482* .448** .2399 + P (.208 ) (.017 ) (.002 ) (.079 ) n 41 37 41 36 Week T r a i l o r r -.1412 -.0938 .1583 .2266 P (.189 ) (.29 ) (.161 ) (.092 ) n 41 37 41 36 T2 Memory Post-assessment Immediate VT r .3502** .2748* .2133 .2311 + P (.004 ) (.034 ) (.057 ) (.061 ) n 56 45 56 46 Day Tree r .3566** .2 726 .2168* .2326 + P (.004 ) (.035 ) (.05 ) (.06 ) n 56 45 56 46 Week T r a i l o r r .222 * .1696 .1349 .2697* + P (.05 ) (.133 ) (.161 ) (.035 ) Two Month n 56 45 56 46 * p« .05 ** p<$ .01 44 In c o n c l u s i o n , the r e s u l t s of the c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s do not provide strong e m p i r i c a l support f o r the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p between assess-ment and memory performance. While there was evidence of s i g n i f i c a n t r e -l a t i o n s h i p s f o r v e r t i c a l i t y ; the c o r r e l a t i o n s found were n e i t h e r strong nor c o n s i s t e n t . 45 Di s c u s s i o n While the assessment data were not a primary concern of the present study, the r e s u l t s provided an independent measure of the ope r a t i v e d i f f i -c u l t y of the concepts represented i n the memory s t i m u l i , and d i d permit a reexamination of some of the assessment/memory r e l a t i o n s h i p s p r e v i o u s l y reported by Liben (1974, 1975). Performance on the assessment tasks conformed w i t h expectations. S e r i a t i o n was the e a s i e s t task w i t h a l l s u b jects performing p e r f e c t l y . The v e r t i c a l i t y assessment was of medium d i f f i c u l t y , w h i l e subjects performed most poorly on the balance task. As Liben had found, males outperformed females on the v e r t i c a l i t y assessment and a s i m i l a r sex d i f f e r e n c e was found i n the balance assessment. The most important aspect of the assessment r e s u l t s concerned t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h memory f o r the r e l a t e d s t i m u l i . While some s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between v e r t i c a l i t y and memory f o r F l a g and Crane, the r e s u l t s were weak and i n c o n s i s t e n t across both memory s t i m u l i and type of memory t e s t . These f i n d i n g s p a r a l l e l those reported by Liben (1975) . A novel f i n d i n g concerns the r e l a t i o n s h i p between memory performance and the r e s u l t s from the two subtasks of the v e r t i c a l i t y assessment: Trees arid T r a i l o r s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d that the Tree subtask was as good a p r e d i c t o r of memory performance f o r both F l a g and Crane as the t o t a l v e r t i c a l i t y score. The f i n d i n g of so few s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between T r a i l o r and Crane i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g since the task subjects were given i n T r a i l o r and the example of v e r t i c a l i t y expressed i n Crane appear to be conceptually i d e n t i c a l . 46 There are s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e explanations f o r these non-existent and weak r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The assessments may be inadequate. From a P i a g e t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e , a short paper and p e n c i l te s t , such as the v e r t i c a l i t y assess-ment would not be considered an adequate probe of a c h i l d ' s understanding of a concept. The l a c k of f i n d i n g s may r e f l e c t ' t h e " f a c t " t h a t the memory for the operative aspects of s t i m u l i such as p i c t u r e s , i s based on schemes that are not p r e d i c t a b l e in:advance or c o n s i s t e n t across a l l c h i l d r e n . I t i s p o s s i b l e that the use of memory s t i m u l i that i n v o l v e the c h i l d i n more a c t i v e and s p e c i f i c i n t e r a c t i o n s would r e s u l t i n .more convincing e m p i r i c a l evidence. Another explanation i s that the memory s t i m u l i and assessment tasks are not o p e r a t i v e l y r e l a t e d . This may be a v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n i n the case of the See-saw. The incidence of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between See-Saw and the balance assessment was n e g l i b l e . While more evidence of a r e l a t i o n -ship might have occurred i f the subject sample had i n c l u d e d o l d e r c h i l d r e n , i . e . c h i l d r e n c l o s e r to formal operations, the.assessment was i n a l l l i k e l i -hood tapping something.more rudimentary than the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y p r i n c i p l e as Inhelder and Piaget (1958) have developed the i d e a . Consistent w i t h t h i s , i s the f a c t that performance f o r both the v e r t i c a l i t y and balance assessments improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the pre- to the post-assessment s e s s i o n . While improvements i n v e r t i c a l i t y would not be s u r p r i s i n g given the t r a n s i t i o n a l nature of s u b j e c t s ' understanding of the concept, i t i s somewhat counter to t h e o r e t i c a l expectations f o r there to be a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n per-formance f o r the balance assessment. P r o p o r t i o n a l i t y i s supposedly an ad-vanced o p e r a t i v e a c q u i s i t i o n , thus one would expect l i t t l e development of the concept to be evident f o r most subjects u n t i l much l a t e r . 47 In the case of the other three memory s t i m u l i , the operative component of each does appear to be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the corresponding assessment. A f i n a l e x p l a n ation i s that there may be considerable d i f f e r e n c e s i n what i s being coded as operative memory across the memory s t i m u l i . This l a t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s developed below a f t e r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the memory r e s u l t s . The two memory ta s k s , reproduction and r e c o g n i t i o n , y i e l d e d g e n e r a l l y p a r a l l e l patterns of operative memory. Consistent w i t h P i a g e t i a n theory and w i t h r e s u l t s reported by Liben (19 75),, there were more h i g h - l e v e l responses f o r the o p e r a t i v e l y e a s i e r N a i l s stimulus than f o r the two opera-t i v e l y t r a n s i t i o n a l F l a g and Crane s t i m u l i . This v a r i a t i o n i n memory per-formance across s t i m u l i was evident as e a r l y as the immediate t e s t and r e -mained r e l a t i v e l y constant w i t h one exception to be discussed l a t e r , across the day, week and two month memory t r i a l s . No s i g n i f i c a n t t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t s were evident. The p a t t e r n of memory f o r See-saw was d i f f e r e n t . Performance f o r See-saw was marked by an i n i t i a l l y h i g h - l e v e l of accurate memory which de-c l i n e d a f t e r a day f o r reproductions and a f t e r a week f o r r e c o g n i t i o n r e -s u l t s . Moreover, s u b j e c t s ' performance on both measures d e c l i n e d s i g n i f i -c a n t l y from the i n i t i a l (immediate, d'ay, or week) memory t e s t to the second memory session at two months. No t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t was the only f i n d i n g w i t h See-saw that overlapped w i t h that obtained f o r the N a i l s , F l a g , and Crane s t i m u l i . The f i n d i n g s f o r See-saw appear to be a p e r f e c t demonstration of the f i g u r a t i v e memory hypothesis. While the c h i l d r e n were not o p e r a t i v e l y equipped to a s s i m i l a t e the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y concept expressed i n the stimu-l u s , they were able to r e l y on a f i g u r a t i v e memory trace to recognize and to reproduce the stimulus i n the immediate memory t r i a l . The cap a c i t y to 48 reproduce the p i c t u r e d e c l i n e d q u i c k l y , w h i l e r e c o g n i t i o n d e c l i n e d more s l o w l y . By two months, t h i s f i g u r a t i v e memory trace had faded and as the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d , the c h i l d r e n were unable to r e c a l l the operative e l e -ments of the stimulus a c c u r a t e l y . The n o t i o n that memory r e g r e s s i o n occurs f o r events the c h i l d has a t r a n s i t i o n a l understanding of i s not supported by these f i n d i n g s . The See-saw r e l a t e d to an advanced concept, yet r e g r e s s i o n d i d occur. The two t r a n s i t i o n a l s t i m u l i , F l a g , and Crane, were not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e g r e s s i o n . An a l t e r n a t e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r these f i n d i n g s i s as f o l l o w s . The four s t i m u l i may vary i n terms of the c o n t r i b u t i o n of memory ( i n the s t r i c t sense) to the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the operative elements. I t i s p o s s i b l e , that most c h i l d r e n do not even n o t i c e the v e r t i c a l i t y of the f l a g and chain i n the F l a g and Crane s t i m u l i since the a c t u a l o r i e n t a t i o n of these elements i s not c e n t r a l i n e i t h e r p i c t u r e . I t i s al s o l i k e l y that there i s no memory in v o l v e d i n the d i r e c t i o n the c h i l d r e n o r i e n t the f l a g and chain i n t h e i r reproductions.. Instead, subjects may supply or i n f e r such d e t a i l s on the b a s i s of t h e i r o p e rative schemes (memory i n the broad sense), i . e . , how they understand the concept of v e r t i c a l i t y . The f i n d i n g of c o n s i s t e n t operative memory performance across time f o r the F l a g and Crane s t i m u l i may r e f l e c t t h i s l a c k of au t h e n t i c memory. I t could be argued w i t h the N a i l s and See-saw s t i m u l i , that the opera-t i v e aspects ( s e r i a t e d n a i l s , p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y p r i n c i p l e expressed i n the arrangement of f i g u r e s on a See-saw) are more c e n t r a l . Unless the c h i l d can reconstruct a memory image ( i n whatever form) of what these s t i m u l i are about, he w i l l not be able to give o p e r a t i v e l y c o r r e c t responses. Thus the p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s may r e v e a l more about the p r o p e r t i e s of the s t i m u l i and the s c o r i n g procedure than about the r o l e of o p e r a t i v i t y i n 49 memory. Piaget and Inhelder (Chapter 13, 19 73) have noted memory regressions of the sort obtained here. They review an experiment in which children's memories of an incomprehensible causal, process over a six month period were examined. The results of the study indicated that children who did not have an operational understanding of causality were able to accurately recall the depicted causal events up to a week. Piaget and Inhelder argue that despite their immature operative schemes, they were able to derive a pseudo-lawful explanation of the event. These explanations provided a framework that enabled the child to organize his memory and to accurately reconstruct the event for a short time. The organization responsible for the conserva-tion of this memory was as unstable as the child's developing understanding of causality. Thus the occurrance of a dramatic decline in memory evidenced at six months. It is likely that Piaget and Inhelder would invoke a variation on this explanation to account for the occurrance of regressed memories as have been found for the See-saw stimulus and which North American researchers such as Furth, et. al. (19 74) and Liben (1975 0 have reported. The disturbing qual-ity of this explanation is that the operativity hypothesis takes on a fluidity bordering on the elusive. That is, one can wonder what research finding could not be interpreted as consistent with the concept of operative schemes. In any event, the current results suggest that children do remember information that they do not understand. This aspect of memory, even i f shortlived, may have an important epistemological role for the developing child. The value of the figurative or arbitrary-operative distinction was con-firmed by the different pattern of results obtained for the two types of information. First, figurative memory did not vary across stimuli, while 50 memory f o r the operative aspects 'did. Secondly, memory f o r the f i g u r a t i v e aspects "decayed" r a p i d l y w i t h time. F i n a l l y , there were t e s t - r e t e s t e f f e c t s such that an i n i t i a l t e s t improved the two month memory f o r the f i g u r a t i v e aspects. These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that operative and f i g u r a t i v e memories are d i s t i n c t . The f i g u r a t i v e memory p a t t e r n could be accounted f o r w i t h i n the P i a g e t i a n framework. The d e c l i n e i n memory f o r these a r b i t r a r y or non-con-ceptual elements could be i n t e r p r e t e d as c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the assumption "that memory c o l l a b o r a t e s w i t h the schemata of i n t e l l i g e n c e " . While the f i g u r a t i v e - r e l e v a n t , f i g u r a t i v e - i r r e l e v a n t f i n d i n g s may be an a r t i f a c t of c h i l d r e n ' s a t t e n t i o n to d i f f e r e n t d e t a i l s , the occurrance of b e t t e r memories f o r f i g u r a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the operative concepts would a l s o be co n s i s t e n t w i t h an P i a g e t i a n p e r s p e c t i v e . Presumably, the a m e l i o r a t i v e e f f e c t of an e a r l i e r r e c a l l t r i a l could a l s o be i n t e r p r e t e d as having made the f i g u r a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n more f u n c t i o n a l and thus increased the l i k e l i h o o d that i t would be a s s i m i l a t e d to d i f f e r e n -t i a t e d schemata. While such t h e o r i z i n g i s p o s s i b l e , i t again appears some-what e l u s i v e and u n s a t i s f y i n g . The c o n t r a s t i n g p a t t e r n of f i n d i n g s f o r the f a c t u a l versus conceptual i n f o r m a t i o n would appear to demand a c l e a r e r e x p l a n a t i o n . One important measure of the future value of the operative approach to memory w i l l depend upon the extent to which i t can be developed to provide a coherent account of f i n d i n g s such as the above. 51 References Anderson, J.R. and Bower, G.H., Human A s s o c i a t i v e Memory. N.Y.: John Wiley, 1973. E l k i n d , D. D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , s e r i a t i o n , and numeration of s i z e and dimensional d i f f e r e n c e s i n young c h i l d r e n : Piaget r e p l i c a t i o n study VI. Jo u r n a l  of Genetic Psychology, 1964, 104, 2 75-296. Fu r t h , H., Ross, B., & Youniss, J . Operative understanding i n c h i l d r e n ' s immediate and long-term reproductions of drawings. C h i l d Development, 1974, 45, 63-70. Inhelder, B. and P i a g e t , J . The Growth of L o g i c a l Thinking. N.Y.: B a s i c Books, 1958. Li b e n , L. Operative understanding of h o r i z o n t a l i t y and i t s r e l a t i o n to long-term memory. C h i l d Development, 1974, 45_, 416-424. Liben, L. Long-term memory f o r p i c t u r e s r e l a t e d to s e r i a t i o n , h o r i z o n t a l i t y , and v e r t i c a l i t y concepts. Developmental Psychology, 1975, J_l_, 795-806. Liben, L. Memory from a cognitive-developmental p e r s p e c t i v e : A t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l review. In N. Overton & J . Gallagher, (Eds.) Knowledge  and development, V o l . 1: Advances i n research and theory. New York: Plenum, 1977. 52 MacKay, C., Brazendale, A., & Wilson, L. Concepts of h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i -c a l : A methodological note. Developmental Psychology 1972, 7_, 232 -? 2 P i a g e t , J. & Inhelder, B. The c h i l d ' s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1956. P i a g e t , J. The mechanisms of p e r c e p t i o n . London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1969. P i a g e t , J. & Inhelder, B. Mental imagery i n the c h i l d . London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1971. P i a g e t , J. & Inhelder, B. Memory and i n t e l l i g e n c e . London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1973. Winer, B.O. S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental design. 2nd ed. N.Y.: McGraw H i l l , 1971. 53 Reference Note 1. L i b e n , L. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of long-term memory regressions i n P i a g e t i a n research. Paper presented at the B i e n n i a l Meeting of the Society f o r Research i n C h i l d Development, New Orleans, 1977. 54 APPENDIX A 56 1) < — / ' 10) 1 ^ r 1 1 1 3 £ ~ ' « -11) ' ^ 2 1 _ , / , 12) 1 / 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) t-1 -\ •/ , 13) I / r-1 "2 3 1 / 14) 1 / h 1 2 3 / i , 15) ( / t-7) , / 1 16) » /" 8) 1 / , 17) ' A 9) . / -a Figure 2. Schematic of s i t u a t i o n s used i n Balance assessment. Note: Numbers i n d i c a t e weights i n kilogram. S i t u a t i o n s scored f o r assessment are 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17. 57 APPENDIX B I I \. \LUl tJIJI UTTTT WJ/Jji UJ iS.f.UJ fflt t fftftimiinu/ji \tfSJJJ / J ffj UljU I'ft Figure 3. Crane. 62 APPENDIX C 63 Table 1 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r V e r t i c a l i t y Assessment Sex X Group X Time-of-Test Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares Sex Group Sex X Group E r r o r Time-of-Test Sex X Time Group X Time Sex X Group X Time E r r o r 208.105 76.834 33.449 780.168 60.424 1.100 9.563 8.588 248.723 1 3 3 48 1 1 3 48 208.105 25.611 11.15 16.253 60.424 1.100 3.188 2.863 5.182 12.804 1.576 .686 11.661 .212 .615 .552 .001 .207 .565 .001 .647 .609 .649 .64 Table 2 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Balance Assessment Sex X Group X Time-of-Test Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares Sex 34.624 Group 10.436 Sex X Group 38.252 E r r o r 246.410 Time-of-Test 58.335 Sex X Time .677 Group X Time 3.947 Sex X Group X Time .947 E r r o r 100.965 1 3 3 48 1 1 3 3 48 34.624 3.479 12.751 5.134 58.335 .677 1.316 .316 2.103 6.745 .678 2.484 27.733 , .322 .626 .15 .012 .570 .072 .001 .573 .602 .929 65 Table 3 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T l (Immediate, Day, Week, Two Months) Operative Recognition Performance Sex X Group X Memory Stimulus Source Sum of Squares dlf Mean Square Sex Group Sex X Group Er r o r Memory Stimulus Sex X Stimulus Group X Stimulus Sex X Group X Stimulus E r r o r .628 4.410 .018 22.973 30.357 .451 7.749 1.891 68.667 1 3 3 48 3 3 9 9 144 .628 1.470 .006 .479 10.119 .150 .861 .210 .477 1.312 3.071 .012 21.220 .315 1.806 .441 .258 .036 .998 .001 .815 .072 .911 66 Table 4 O v e r a l l A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l ( T l) and Two Months (T2) Operative Recognition Performance Group X Time-of-Test X Memory Stimulus Source Sum of Squares df_ Mean Square JF p_ Group E r r o r Time-of-Test Group X Time E r r o r Memory Stimulus Group X Stimulus E r r o r Time X Stimulus Group X Time X Stimulus E r r o r 1.377 22.183 3.258 .257 6.876 42.749 5.323 66.387 4.875 .939 42.075 2 38 1 2 38 3 6 114 3 6 114 .689 .584 3.258 .128 .181 14.250 .887 .582 1.625 .157 .369 1.180 18.006 . 709 24.47 1.523 4.403 .424 .318 .001 .498 .001 .177 .006 .862 67 Table 5 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T2 (Two Month) Operative Recognition Performance Sex X Group X Memory Stimulus Source Sum of Squares _df_ Mean Squares. . F_ p_ Sex Group Sex X Group E r r o r Sex X Group X Stimulus E r r o r 2.333 .671 .714 17.317 Memory Stimulus 30.68 Sex X Stimulus 1.907 Group X Stimulus 5.232 5.581 76.642 1 3 3 48 3 3 9 144 2.333 , .224 .238 .361 10.227 .637 .581 .620 .532 6.468 .620 .660 19.214 1.194 1.092 1.165 .014 .606 .581 .001 .314 .372 .322 68 Table 6 Oneway A n a l y s i s of Variance Tests f o r I n i t i a l (Tl) Operative Reproductions from N a i l s , F l a g , Crane, and See-saw Source Sum of Squares df_ Mean Squares N a i l s : Groups E r r o r F l a g : Group E r r o r Crane: Gro up E r r o r See-saw Group E r r o r 8.4029 31.9047 .2669 10.3109 .0633 4.7322 5.8297 31.2316 3 48 3 41 3 40 3 45 2.801 .6647 .0890 .2515 .0211 .1183 1.9432 .694 4.214 354 178 2.800 .01 7867 ,9104 .0507 69 Table 7 O v e r a l l A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T l ( I n i t i a l ) and T2 (Two Month) Operative Reproductions Group X Time-of-Test X Memory Stimulus Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square Group r E r r o r Time-of-Test Group X Time E r r o r Memory Stimulus Group X Stimulus E r r o r Time X Stimulus Group X Time X Stimulus E r r o r 3.002 15.373 1.086 .823 5.857 17.949 7.042 28.976 5.839 1.833 10.746 2 20 1 2 20 3 6 60 3 6 60 1.501 . 769 1.086 .411 .293 5.983 1.174 .483 1.946 .306 .179 1.953 3. 71 1.405 12.389 2.43 10.867 1.706 ,168 .068 .269 .001 .036 .001 .135 70 Table 8 Oneway A n a l y s i s of Variance Test f o r T2 (Two Month) Operative Reproduction of N a i l s , F l a g , Crane, and See-Saw Source Sum of Squares df_ Mean Squares N a i l s : Group E r r o r F l a g : Group E r r o r Crane: Group E r r o r See-saw: Group E r r o r 9.1078 30.5286 .4787 10.7657 .3821 5.5309 1.3715 12.8085 3 51 3 41 3 42 3 46 3.0359 .5986 .1596 .2626 .1274 .1317 .4572 .2784 5.072 .608 .967 1.642 .0038 .6138 ,4172 .1927 71 Table 9 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T l ( I n i t i a l ) F i g u r a t i v e Memory Results Group X Memory Stimulus Source Sum of Squares df_ Mean Squares Group 66.486 Er r o r 66.795 Memory Stimulus 1.884 Group X Stimulus 8.406 Erro r 109.617 3 52 3 9 156 22.828 1.285 .628 .934 . .703 17.772 .894 1.329 .001 .446 .226 72 Table 10 O v e r a l l A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r I n i t i a l ( T l) and Two Month (T2) F i g u r a t i v e Memory Results Group X Memory Stimulus X Time-of-Test Source Sum of Squares df_ Mean Squares Group E r r o r Time-of-Test Group X Time E r r o r Memory Stimulus Group X Memory Stimulus E r r o r Time X Memory Stimulus Group X Time X Stimulus E r r o r 37.17 76.281 1.691 10.347 28.609 2.194 3.993 104.975 2.764 4.882 82.676 2 38 1 2 38 3 6 114 6 114 18.585 2.007 1.691 5.173 .753 . .731 .666 .921 .921 .814 .725 9.258 2.246 6.872 .794 .723 1.271 1.122 .001 .142 .003 .500 .632 ,354 73 Table 11 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T2 (Two Month) F i g u r a t i v e Memory Results Group X Memory Stimulus Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares Group 20.075 Er r o r 66.296 Memory Stimulus 6.601 Group X Stimulus 3.333 E r r o r 144.50 3 52 3 9 156 6.692 1.275 2.200 .370 .926 5.249 2.375 .400 .003 .072 .934 74 Table 12 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T l ( I n i t i a l ) F i g u r a t i v e Memory R e s u l t s : Relevant versus I r r e l e v a n t Group X F i g u r a t i v e Score Source Sum of Squares df_ Mean Squares Group 86.689 E r r o r 105.389 F i g u r a t i v e score 9.097 Group X F i g u r a t i v e score 5.715 Er r o r 69.532 2 38 1 2 38 43.345 2.773 9.097 2.858 1.83 15.629 .001 4.971 .032 1.562 .223 75 Table 13 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r T2 (Two Month) F i g u r a t i v e Memory R e s u l t s : Relevant versus I r r e l e v a n t Group X F i g u r a t i v e Score Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares Group 40.149 E r r o r 132.591 F i g u r a t i v e score 13.746 Group X F i g u r a t i v e score 3.812 E r r o r 106.329 3 52 1 3 52 13.383 2.550 13.746 1.271 2.045 5.249 6.722 ,621 .003 .012 .604 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094761/manifest

Comment

Related Items