Using the microgenetic method to investigate cognitive development: an introduction

Infant and Child DevelopmentInf. Child Dev. 16: 1–6 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/icd.503

Editorial

Using the Microgenetic Method toInvestigate Cognitive Development:An Introduction

Conceptualizing and measuring change are perhaps the most fundamentalaspects of developmental psychology. Yet, paradoxically, the main methodolo-gical approaches concentrate on static states or measurements of a child’sperformance across wide time intervals, and have to infer the processes andnature of development. This special issue is dedicated to research that adopts amethod that stands against such approaches and instead allows the process ofchange to be examined as it is happening; this is the microgenetic, ormicrodevelopmental, method.

Our aims in this special issue are threefold. First, we draw attention to theapparent inconsistency highlighted above. If developmental psychologists areinterested in change, how do we grapple with its analysis? Research usually fallsinto two main areas: (i) investigations of individual differences in skills with theaim of establishing how they inter-relate either concurrently or longitudinally; (ii)comparisons of the performance on a set of tests of different groups differentiatedby age, clinical diagnosis and/or their allocation to experimental conditions.Such approaches seem to be at odds with the methodologies used by two of thefounding fathers of developmental psychology, Piaget and Vygotsky, and theirpredecessors. Both Piaget and Vygotsky took intensive measures of changes inchildren’s competences over time (Piaget, 1951; Vygotsky, 1930/1978). Vygotsky’s(1978, p. 65) developmental approach ‘to encompass in research the process of agiven thing’s development in all its phases and changes. . .fundamentally meansto discover its nature, its essence, for ‘it is only in movement that a body showswhat it is’’. Admittedly, research practice has witnessed improvements inmethodologies by increasing sample sizes, adopting rigorous experimentalprocedures and requiring detailed reports, allowing replication. Yet develop-mental psychology often shies away from the complexity of explaining howchange occurs and, instead, concentrates on indicating that a change has takenplace. The microgenetic method has taken a longstanding stance against thistrend, although its use has been piecemeal and subject to the ebbs and flows overtime of all approaches.

Second, we aim to provide readers with a better understanding of themicrogenetic method. In this introduction we describe its history, principlesand approaches to the issue of change. Further, we aim to offer a balancedview of the method, not only highlighting its value and potential, but alsopresenting information relating to its associated challenges. Two papers in thisspecial issue relate specifically to this aim. van Dijk and van Geert (2007)

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

present a practical and theoretical analysis of the conceptualization ofcontinuities and discontinuities of change within individuals. They highlightimportant issues about exactly how we should label the process of changeat different stages, or sequences of behaviour that children display duringvery localized aspects of development. Cheshire, Muldoon, Francis, Lewis,and Ball (2007) offer a further practical and theoretical account of the importanceof the use of appropriate tools to investigate change. Just as children’sdevelopment can often appear abrupt, changes in technology and scientificunderstanding can also occur quickly. Drawing upon recent approaches tostatistical modelling, Cheshire et al. argue that developmental psychologists needto adopt these advanced tools in order to get a true understanding of the processof change.

Thirdly, and finally, we wish to draw attention to the diversity of issues towhich the microgenetic method can be applied. In selecting papers for the specialissue, our aim has been to try to present as wide a variety of topics and researchdesigns as possible. The papers vary across different domains; theory ofmind and inhibitory control (Flynn, 2007), analogical reasoning (Cheshire et al.,2007; Tunteler & Resing, 2007), understanding balance (Philips & Tolmie, 2007),counting (Cheshire et al., 2007; Chetland & Fluck, 2007) and languagedevelopment (van Dijk & van Geert, 2007). The studies vary across timescales, from trial-by-trial change (Chetland & Fluck, 2007), to developmentaltrajectories over weeks (Cheshire et al., 2007) or months (Flynn, 2007; van Dijk &van Geert, 2007). This can be measured at the levels of individuals (Chetland &Fluck, 2007; Flynn, 2007; van Dijk & van Geert, 2007), dyadic relationships(Philips & Tolmie, 2007) or in terms of group changes (Cheshire et al., 2007;Philips & Tolmie, 2007).

The microgenetic studies in this issue fall into two types. One approachinvestigates change as it occurs spontaneously, with repeated presentation oftests over the period of change (Chetland & Fluck, 2007; Flynn, 2007; Tunteler &Resing, 2007; van Dijk & van Geert, 2007). The effects of spontaneous changefrom repeated exposure can then be compared with control groups who do notreceive the repeated testing. The second approach aims to induce change(Cheshire et al., 2007; Philips & Tolmie, 2007), by providing different forms ofintervention, such as giving feedback on the accuracy of an answer. Oftenparticipants are asked to explain their answer to test the hypothesis thatexplanation leads to deeper conceptualization, and thus more rapid and robustconceptual change.

An additional feature of the diversity of the studies in this special issue is therange of outcome measures indicating change. A number of studies in this specialissue measure transformation by a change in score (Flynn, 2007), while othersinfer progress from a change in overt behaviour (Chetland & Fluck, 2007; vanDijk & van Geert, 2007) or explanation style (Cheshire et al., 2007).

Finally, we cannot begin this special issue without acknowledging the supportof the British Psychological Society and the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil. This special issue was a product of a series of seminars funded by thesebodies. Their aim was to bring together people with an interest in themicrogenetic method to provide them with the opportunity to share knowledgeabout the different areas in which it has been applied and the differenttechniques which have been used in its application. The seminars were verylively, with excellent presentations from British and overseas speakers. They wereinformative and stimulating, and we hope that their impact will be significantand far-reaching.

E. Flynn, K. Pine and C. Lewis2

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 16: 1–6 (2007)

WHAT IS THE MICROGENETIC METHOD?

The term ‘microgenesis’ was used in print in the current context byWerner in 1956 to describe a study in which he repeatedly presented stimuli tothe same participants in order to measure discrimination in auditory perception(Werner, 1948, 1956). However, microgenetic studies were taking placemuch earlier than 1948, notably in the Geneva laboratories of Piaget’s groupand the Russian laboratories of Vygotsky. One of its earliest post-Piagetianproponents was Karmiloff-Smith who was interested in tracking the way thatchildren solved problems and in studying endogenously provokedchange (Karmiloff-Smith & Inhelder, 1974). Today, the term ‘microgenetic’ ismost commonly used to refer to the specifics of the microgenetic method (Siegler,1996, 2006). The term ‘genesis’ was used to represent change, since it was taken tobe synonymous with ‘development’ at the time. Following the dramaticincrease in genetics research since the 1960s and a simultaneous waning in useof the word ‘microgenesis’ in developmental psychology, it has beensuggested that the term could be misinterpreted and that, ‘microdevelopment’may be a more appropriate label. Microdevelopment refers to ‘the process ofchange in abilities, knowledge, and understanding during short-timespans’ (Granott & Parziale, 2002, p. 1). However, we have stuck with theolder term ‘microgenetic’ as it has the most common coinage and it linkscurrent studies with a long history of theory and research in which change wascentral.

The ‘short-time spans’, referred to in the quotation above, could representminutes (Goldin-Meadow, 1999; Miller & Aloise-Young, 1996; Pine, Lufkin &Messer, 2006; Thornton, 1999), weeks (Blote, Resing, Mazer, & van Noort, 1999;Schlagmuller & Schneider, 2002; Siegler & Svetina, 2002) or even months (Flynn,2006; Flynn, O’Malley, & Wood, 2004, Gelman, Romo, & Francis, 2002). The rateof development of the relevant actions, interactions or cognitive processes beingstudied dictates the length of the period of examination.

The microgenetic approach involves taking repeated measurements from thesame participants over the course of transition in the domain of interest. The onlyway to specify the operations of the mechanisms of change is to examine closelythe nature of a transition. The microgenetic method has three principles (Siegler,1996, 2006; Siegler & Jenkins, 1989). First, observations must span the period ofchanging competence. Therefore, researchers must have a good indication of thetime parameters of the development of the skill under investigation; when, andunder what conditions, does it occur? Existing cross-sectional, broad longitudinaland meta-analytic analyses can provide this information.

Second, the density of the observations must be high relative to the rate ofchange. Microgenetic studies take regular measurements to establish the timingand nature of change, thus allowing stability, continuity, and shifts in behaviourto be recorded. Observations need to be sufficiently dense to show small,transient changes that occur as a person progresses from no competence to fullcompetence. An important issue for microgenetic research is the carefuldefinition of the characteristics of the behaviour being measured. For example,when considering arithmetic ability, a measure may be created that comprises ofsuccessful problem completions at different times. If a participant’s scoreincreases or decreases across testing sessions this indicates that change hasoccurred but it does not provide explanatory power, so further analysis needs tobe undertaken to describe whether any or all aspects of the skill have explainedhow that change has occurred.

Editorial 3


The final principle of the microgenetic method is that the recordedobservations of changing performance are subjected to intensive analysis toestablish the underlying process of change. Fine-grained data are produced thatallow the activity to be analysed on a trial-by-trial or session-by-session basis,thus illustrating strategy shifts. These may involve only a brief implementation ofa specific strategy, but only by such fine-grained observation can the progressionfrom no understanding to full understanding in a particular domain beestablished. To achieve this end, for example, Thornton (1999) transcribedproblem-solvers’ concurrent verbalizations to discover which strategies theyused and how these developed across a range of problems. Alternatively,participants might be asked to explain how a certain answer was reached after aproblem’s completion (Siegler, 1995). Other studies have inferred strategy-usethrough observations of behaviour (e.g. for sorting see Blote, Resing, Mazer, andvan Noort, 1999 or gesture-speech mismatch, see Goldin-Meadow, Alibali andChurch, 1993). In these and other studies, change was indicated in part by thelong pauses, false starts, inefficient moves made by participants and themismatch of verbal answers with the strategy indicated by their hand-movements (Alibali & Goldin-Meadow, 1993; Perry & Lewis, 1999).

The microgenetic method provides detailed information about an individual’sprofile of performance over a period of transition. A critical feature of the methodis that it allows change to be viewed as ‘untidy’, rather than the ‘tidy’ transitionsuggested by cross-sectional or longitudinal studies. It allows us to identifywhether change may be sudden and discrete, or smooth and gradual and,importantly, whether different individuals experience the same transitions.Change can involve a number of sudden yet small jumps, regressions andperiods of equilibrium. These different forms may be critical to the transition,indicating how a person’s knowledge or ability progresses from one to another,often more sophisticated, level. It is only by taking fine-grained measures acrossthe period of change that these elements of change can be identified andmeasured. Furthermore, moments of knowledge transition may manifestthemselves in minute changes in discrete non-verbal behaviours, like gestures,that can be captured under the microgenetic ‘microscope’ (Pine et al., 2006).

The microgenetic approach closely tracks an individual’s progression throughthe whole period of change, yielding rich data that could not be captured bytraditional methods. Five dimensions have been examined to accomplish this:

* The path of change.* The rate of change.* The breadth of change.* The variability of change.* The source of change.

We make no apologies for repeating the word ‘change’ here. The microgeneticapproach has a number of advantages for all those interested in studying how itoccurs, with its focus on rich, fine-grained description of the issue underinvestigation. Examining individual participants’ behaviour over time highlightsboth between participant variability, potentially showing different types oftransition, and within participant variability, which is often so characteristic ofthe nature of change. The method provides an opportunity to examine thedifferences, and the underlying sources of differences, between individuals overtime. For example, it allows researchers to identify different groups that mayrequire particular treatment or intervention styles. This can yield answers to



questions that cannot be answered by other approaches. Most excitingly fordevelopmental psychologists is the fact that microgenetic studies, ‘reveal not justwhat children know but how they get there’ (Granott & Parziale, 2002, p. 12). We hopethat the papers in this volume convince the reader of the validity of the approachand the need to make it an essential ingredient in every researcher’s tool kit,allowing him or her also to reflect upon the relations between small-scale changesin one skill and general patterns of development. How individuals ‘get there’ isindeed a complex business.

REFERENCES

Alibali, M. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Gesture-speech mismatch and mechanisms oflearning: What the hands reveal about a child’s state of mind. Cognitive Psychology, 25,468–523.

Blote, A. W., Resing, W. C. M., Mazer, P., & van Noort, D. A. (1999). Young children’sorganizational strategies on a same-different task: A microgenetic study and a trainingstudy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 21–43.

Cheshire, A., Muldoon, K., Francis, B., Lewis, C., & Ball, L. (2007). Modelling change: Newopportunities in the analysis of microgenetic data. Infant and Child Development, 16(1),119–134.

Chetland, E., & Fluck, M. (2007). Children’s performance on the ‘give x’ task: Amicrogenetic analysis of ‘counting’ and ‘grabbing’ behaviour. Infant and ChildDevelopment, 16(1), 35–51.

Flynn, E. (2006). A microgenetic investigation of stability and continuity in theory of minddevelopment. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 631–654.

Flynn, E. (2007). The role of inhibitory control in false belief understanding. Infant and ChildDevelopment, 16(1), 53–69.

Flynn, E., O’Malley, C., & Wood, D. (2004). A longitudinal, microgenetic study of theemergence of false belief understanding and inhibition skills. Developmental Science, 7,103–115.

Gelman, R., Romo, L., & Francis, W. S. (2002). Notebooks as windows on learning: The caseof a science-into-ESL program. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment:Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 269–293). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The role of gestures in communication and thinking. Trends inCognitive Science, 3, 419–429.

Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in conceptacquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100, 279–297.

Granott, N., & Parziale, J. (2002). Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective forstudying development and learning. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment:Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 1–28). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Inhelder, B. (1974). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition,3(3), 195–212.

Miller, P., & Aloise-Young, P. (1996). Preschoolers’ strategic behaviours and performanceon a same-different task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 284–303.

Perry, M., & Lewis, J. L. (1999). Verbal imprecision as an index of knowledge in transition.Developmental Psychology, 35, 749–759.

Philips, S., & Tolmie, A. (2007). Children’s performance on and understanding of theBalance Scale problem: The effects of parental support. Infant and Child Development,16(1), 95–117.

Piaget, J. (1951) Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (2nd ed. 1962). London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Pine, K. J., Lufkin, N., & Messer, D. (2006). A microgenetic analysis of the relationshipbetween speech and gesture: Evidence for temporal and semantic asynchrony. Languageand Cognitive Processes. Published online 10th May 2006: http://www.journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=e82635409kuk0221

Editorial 5


Schlagmuller, M., & Schneider, W. (2002). The development of organizational strategies inchildren: Evidence from a microgenetic longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 81, 298–319.

Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of numberconservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York:Oxford University Press.

Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (SeriesEds.) & D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 2:Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 464–510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. A. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Siegler, R. S., & Svetina, M. (2002). A microgenetic/cross-sectional study of matrixcompletion: Comparing short-term and long-term change. Child Development, 73,793–809.

Thornton, S. (1999). Creating the conditions for cognitive change: The interaction betweentask structures and specific strategies. Child Development, 70, 588–603.

Tunteler, E., & Resing, W. (2007). Change in spontaneous analogical transfer over time inyoung children: A microgenetic study. Infant and Child Development.

van Dijk, M., & van Geert, P. (2007). ‘Wobbles, humps and sudden jumps’: A case study ofcontinuity, discontinuity and variability in early language development. Infant and ChildDevelopment.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (original works published in 1930, 1933, and1935).

Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York: InternationalUniversity Press.

Werner, H. (1956). Microgenesis and aphasia. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52,347-353.

EMMA FLYNN

School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews,Fife, Scotland KY16 9JP, UK

E-mail: [email protected]

KAREN PINE

School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire,Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK


CHARLIE LEWIS

Centre for Research in Human Development,Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK




Using the microgenetic method to investigate cognitive development: an introduction

Documents

Transcript of Using the microgenetic method to investigate cognitive development: an introduction