Males generally perform better than females on tasks involving the displaced-volume concept. This training study examined whether experience and/or aptitudes play parts in this differential performance. Middleclass 8th graders who failed items on a group pre-test of displaced volume were assigned to training or control groups. All trained subjects, male or female, improved in performance on the displaced-volume task. Observations of facial expressions and postures during training added to evidence that males and females responded similarly to training. The control group showed gains as well. Training effects did not generalize to related tasks. Improvement during training was related to an aspect of Field Dependence-Independence called Familiar Field.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beard, R. M.The order of concept development: Studies in two fields
. Educational Review, 1963, 15, 105-117; 228-237.
2.
Bourne, L. E.
, Ekstrand, B. R., & Dominowski, R. L.The psychology of thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
3.
Cattell, R. B.Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Miffin, 1971.
4.
DeAvila, E. A.
, & Havassy, B., with Pascual-Leone, J.Mexican-American schoolchildren: A neo-Piagetian analysis. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1976.
5.
Elkind, D.Quantity conceptions in college students
. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 57459-465.
6.
French, J. W.
, Ekstron, R. B., & Price, L. A.Manualfor kit of reference tests for cognitive factors (revised 1963). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1963.
7.
Gottschaldt, K.Uber den Einfluss der erfahrung auf die Wahrnehmung von Figuren. I: Uber den einfluss gehaufter einpragung von figuren auf ihre shchtbarkeit in umfassenden konfigurationen
. Psychol. Forsch., 1926, 8, 261-317.
8.
Harris, L. J.Sex differences in spatial ability: Possible environmental, genetic and neurological factors. In M. Kinsbourne (Ed.), Asymmetricalfunctions of the brain. London: Oxford University Press, 1978.
9.
Hobbs, E. D.Adolescents' concept of physical quantity
. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9,431-431.
10.
Hobbs, E. D.Methodological problems in conservation testing with particular reference to volume conservation
. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1975,21, 262-277.
11.
Horn, J. L.Human ability systems. In P. Baltes (Ed.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 1.). New York: Academic Press, 1978.
12.
Horn, J. L.
, & Cattell, R. B.Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966,57, 253-270.
13.
Hotelling, H.The selection of variates for use in prediction, with some comments on the general problem of nuisance parameters
. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1940, 11,271-283.
14.
Keating, D.Adolescent thinking. In J. P. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescence. New York: John Wiley, 1980.
15.
Kuhn, T.A function for thought experiments. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
16.
Lawson, A. E.Sex difference in concrete and formal reasoning ability as measured by manipulative tasks and written tasks
. Science Education, 1975, 59, 397-405.
17.
Linn, M. C.Teaching children to control variables: Some investigations using free choice experiences. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Toward a theory of psychological development within the Piagetian framework. London: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1980.
18.
Linn, M. C.
, & Kyllonen, P.The field dependency construct: Some, one or none. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981,73, 261-273.
19.
Linn, M. C.
, & Swiney, J.Individual differences in formal thought: Role of expectations and aptitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 73, 274-286.
20.
Neimark, E. D.Intellectual development during adolescence. In F. Degan (Ed.), Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 4). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
21.
Neimark, E. D.Current states of formal operations research
. Human Development, 1979, 22, 60-67.
22.
Newcombe, N.Sex-related differences in spatial ability problems and gaps in current approaches. In M. Potegal (Ed.), Spatial orientation: Developmental and physiological bases. New York: Academic Press, in press.
23.
Oltman, P. K.A portable rod-and-frame apparatus
. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 503-506.
24.
Pascual-Leone, J.Constructive problems for constructive theories. In R. H. Klume & H. Spada (Eds.), Developmental models of thinking. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
25.
Perret-Clement, A. N.Social interaction and cognitive development in children. London: Academic Press, 1980.
Piaget, J.Judgment and reasoning in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951. (b)
28.
Piaget, J.
, & Inhelder, B.The child's construction of quantities: Conservation and atomism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1974.
29.
Rosenberg, B. G.
, & Sutton-Smith, B.A revised conception of masculine-feminine differences in play activity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1960, 96, 165-170.
30.
Shayer, M.
, Adey, P., & Wylam, H.Group tests of cognitive development ideals and a realization. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 1981, 18, 157-168.
31.
Sinclair, H.Recent Piagetian research in learning studies. In M. Schwebel & J. Raph (Eds.), Piaget in the classroom. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
32.
Thomas, H.
, & Jamison, W.On the acquisition of understanding that still water is horizontal. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1975, 21, (1), 31-44.
33.
Thomas, H.
, Jamison, W., & Hummel, D. D.Observation is insufficient for discovering that the surface of still water is invariantly horizontal. Science, 1973, 181, 173-174.
34.
Thurstone, T. G.Tests of primary mental abilities. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1962.
