5-Year-Old Children Performing Piaget’s Liquid Conservation Tasks Demonstrated in Physical and Digital Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the understanding of Piaget's concept of liquid conservation in 5-year-old children, comparing physical and digital environments of executing conservation tasks. Involving 86 participants (equal gender representation), it employs an Android tablet to demonstrate the pouring of water between glasses with animated images in a digital environment condition and real glasses (one short-wide and one long-narrow) filled with water for the physical environment condition. Each child completed four distinct conservation tasks, each one 3 times, designed to parallel each other in both environments. Two of the tasks concerned the general concept of conservation, and the other two were either about identity or compensation or reversibility concepts. The study aims to determine whether digital environments can be as effective as physical ones in teaching fundamental conservation concepts, exploring the impact of emerging digital learning tools versus traditional methods. Another objective of this study is to find associations between the general concept of conservation and the three other concepts: identity, compensation, and reversibility. This research contributes to the understanding of cognitive development in children and the efficacy of digital versus physical learning aids by verifying that children perceive physical and virtual learning with the same effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".