Literature Review

Describe about the Age and Categorization of objects in early children to age 12?

Brief background

One of the ways individuals sort out their reality is through categorizations. Normally, youthful kids appear to ingest the idea of categorization smoothly through play, conversing with others and taking an interest in daily activities. Children develop various significant cognitive capabilities since their 18months. They begin to categorize the objects in various ways from this age itself. According to some past studies, infants start categorizing complex objects like stuffed animals and organize according to the prototypes. Compelling categorization abilities empower children to perform assignments proficiently (Momen, 2002). Therefore, in this present study, the researcher investigates the categorization behaviours in early children and tries to identify the relationship between age and categorization of objects in early children to age 12. This paper is focuses around categorization of object at early age and its adaptability. Firstly it would present the extant information on object categorization and its adaptability in early childhood, to be specific somewhere around 3 and 12 years old. Attempting to draw a line and aggregate up what the researcher knows so far can help to discover better approaches to examine the rise of this capacity, so essential in later stage of problem-solving.

The capacity to gathering things as per a typical trademark and after that name that trademark is an essential idea that helps kids structure a premise for organizing and sorting out their reality (Anaki and Bentin, 2009). At the point when instructors methodically show categorization strategies, they are showing a solitary ability as well as a framework for learning, critical thinking and arranging, they are likewise showing the establishment for preparing, recollecting and incorporating new information (Emadi and Esteky, 2009). Numerous individuals wonder about and even begrudge individuals who are constantly ready to put their finger on an item or information when required on the grounds that they know where to discover it. This would not be conceivable without having created complex association methodologies that incorporate categorization (Iachini, Borghi and Senese, 2008). Thus categorization helps understudies structure a premise for organizing and arranging their reality. It can turn into a framework for learning; critical thinking and sorting out and is additionally an establishment for preparing, recalling and coordinating new information (Jones et al., 2012; Mack, 2010).

Keeping in mind the end goal to function proficiently, the human cognitive framework utilizes the capacity to arrange its general surroundings into significant categorizations. At the end of the day, it orders a limitless number of jolts, and this procedure is fundamental for data handling chiefly by its commitment to information organization. The trouble in researching categorization in kids before they can precisely disentangle dialect and investigate the applicable peculiarities of articles in perplexing ways has postponed our insight about right on time ability in order. The most recent many years of examination have united with a refinement of techniques a scope of trial information that depicts categorization in early childhood. For example, as of now at 3 years old year’s kids have right to use to numerous types of categorizations – e.g., taxonomic ones (in light of imparted properties) and topical ones (taking into account co-event in space and time) (Bornstein and Arterberry, 2010).

Strengths and limitations of previous research

Since postnatal life, newborn children show expanding capacities to identify perceptual likenesses and regularities in spatial relations and peculiarities of novel protests and demonstrate a developing reasonable comprehension of the physical and spatial properties of constant robust objects (Mash and Bornstein, 2011; Bornstein, Arterberry and Mash, 2010). By 4 to 6 months of age, babies see fruition of consistent surfaces and directions regardless of impediment, see deceptive contours, recognize genuine objects after presentation to two-dimensional delineations of them and separate between physically conceivable and incomprehensible occasions including robust objects (Smidts, Jacobs and Anderson, 2004; Nazzi and Gopnik, 2000).

Categorization adds to rendering intelligible these generally confusing assorted qualities, permitting us to sum up crosswise over encounters, in light of the fact that Categorization relates every accomplished substance to a surviving representation (Graham et al., 2010). Categorization additionally encourages the capacity and recovery of data, and it supplies a standard of association by which new data can be managed an account proficiently in memory. Along these lines, order suggests a rudimentary sort of derivation and permits the categorizer to react to novel substances as though they were recognizable (Booth, 2008). Categorization of object alludes to imparted representations of like, yet discriminable, objects. Categorization of object passes on learning of other article properties and additionally information of properties of class individuals not yet experienced. In a word, categorization is a fundamental cognitive and formative accomplishment, additionally exhibits an impressive cognitive and formative test (Gaißert, Bülthoff and Wallraven, 2011).

Categorization are particularly profitable in early stages and early adolescence when numerous new questions, occasions, and individuals are experienced on the grounds that, without the capacity and proclivity to order, kids would need to figure out how to react again to every novel element they experience(Son, Smith and Goldstone, 2008). In this sense, bits of knowledge into how Categorization at first creates are essential to comprehension children’ discernments and additionally other developing related mental capacities, for example, memory and dialect (Leibe, Ettlin and Schiele, 2008).

Two perspectives on categorization supplement each other. One underlines processing, and alternate spotlights on structure. Regarding processing, substances on the planet can be ordered in diverse ways: The individuals, objects and events that people experiences consistently are not very bound into a solitary class, yet can be arranged into distinctive classes. Adults amenably classify the same elements in diverse routes in light of evolving guidelines, connections, and assignment requests. So do young children. As children get to be acquainted with the objects in an errand they can change their categorization; whether kids structure a class that incorporates or rejects certain models relies on upon the circulation of models they are presented to (Ionescu, 2007).

This shows that as the children grow, they start understanding the categorization of objects more effectively. This further demonstrates that the children utilize their different depth information about categorization of objects to perceive different objects more effectively as they keep growing and get familiar with the objects (Augier and Thibaut, 2013). Further, to help children to become flexible with the categorization of objects, formative psychologists have started to outline a picture about adaptable categorization ahead of schedule in ontogeny, which speaks to the capacity to put an article in a few categorizations as per diverse categorization criteria. Case For instance, consider a cat as an animal, as a companion, or as a dark and cocoa being. Adults can do this with ease. Flexible categorization provides for children the likelihood of better adjusting to their surroundings, by the method for rethinking the applicable gimmicks of a jolt in the light of new logical requests. Late information on kids demonstrate that they also can interchange them ahead of schedule in their advancement (Mash and Bornstein, 2011).

Even though the previous studies discussed in the literature review have provided significant insights on categorization of objects among different age group of children starting from infancy. It is effectively described that categorization of objects becomes easier for the children as they start getting familiar with the objects near their surrounding and thus as they keep growing they start identifying the objects more easily. The previous studies also describe that categorization of objects is mainly learnt through experience and interaction. Further, the categorization of objects includes ideas that are in view of thoughts and qualities, instead of simply physical things. However, there still exits a gap in understanding how these categorization processes develop across the relatively broad age range of early childhood to age 12. Thus, this present study would analyze the gap and make clear understanding about age and categorization of objects.

The present study is divided into five different parts.

First is introduction where brief about categorization of objects and what the present study is all about is being discussed. Further, this part consists of aim and hypothesis of the study. To provide proper evidence to the current study, a literature review of previous similar studies has been discussed to have thorough understanding of the topic.

Second part discusses the method of conducting this current study. This part describes the research design, procedures and also materials being used to understand the relationship between age and categorization of objects between 3-12 years age of children.

The third part of this proposal emphasizes on the ethics of conducting this research. As it is aimed towards children of age 3-12years, the researcher would try to make sure that all types of safety measures and permission from their parents have be made before starting this project.

Fourth part is the proposed analysis which discusses the way the information is analyzed and what kind of results are expected out of this study.

Last part is appendices that consists of timeline plan of this study and also consists of ethics proposal form.

The aim of the study is to investigate the development of conceptual reasoning in children between 3-12years, using a new task with parameters appropriate for children in this age range. In order to conduct this study, the researcher has decided to focus on following hypothesis:

H0: There is difference in categorization of objects between 3-12years age of children

H1: There is no difference in categorization of objects between 3-12years age of children

Design

This present study utilizes the experimental research design to understand age and categorization of objects among the children between the age group of 3-12years of age. The reason behind selecting this research design is that it helps the researcher to look at the legitimacy of the hypothesis or to focus the viability of something beforehand untried (Akker, 2006). Additional, experimental studies include profoundly controlled and deliberate methodology with an end goal to minimize mistake and predisposition which likewise builds our certainty that the control “brought about” the result (Grand and Jonas, 2012). An alternate key component of this experimental study is random assignment. Random sampling implies that if there are treatments or groups in the research, members are allotted to these groups arbitrarily (like the flip of a coin). This implies that regardless of who the member is, he/she has an equivalent chance of getting into the majority of the groups in the experiment (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000). This procedure serves to guarantee that the group of selected children are similar toward the start of the study so that there is more certainty that the control brought about the result.

Since, this is an academic research and has to be completed within the stipulated given time, the researcher emphasizes on using cross-sectional research study. This implies that analysts record data about their subjects without controlling the study environment. It is characterized as test gatherings along a formative way in a trial to decide how advancement impacts an exploration variable (Bordens and Abbott, 2011). The advantage of a cross-sectional study outline is that it permits analysts to look at various variables in the meantime. On the other hand, cross-sectional studies may not give unmistakable data about cause-and-effect connections. This is on account of such studies offer a depiction of a solitary minute in time; they don’t consider what happens before or after the preview is taken (Quraishi, 2012).

The sample consisted of 50 children, aged between 3years to 12years. This sample is divided into 3 groups: one group consisted of 3-5years children with sample size of 18, other group included children between age group 6-9years with n= 17 and the last group involved children of age 10-12years with sample size 15. Children are selected from different kindergarten, primary schools, child care centres in the metropolitan area of London, United Kingdom. The inclusion criteria for this study are:

• Age between 3 years 0months to 12years 1month while participating in the study
• No past history related to psychiatric or development of neurological disorder
• English should be the first language

Informed consent, based on the ethical procedures, will be taken from the guardians or parents of the children who are participating in the study. More or less equivalent quantities of boys and girls are taken from every age, and the sample was overwhelmingly European American with around 10% of the children of Asian American, African American, and/or mixed ethnicity. Families were enlisted through acquired mailing records recognizing new families in a more prominent metropolitan zone, and they all originated from middle- to upper -financial status family units.

The object categorization used is plastic toys that can be manipulated by the children. This would be more appealing to the early childhood (3-8years) than the late childhood (9-12years) compared to the graphics and diagrams which are mostly liked by the late childhood. However, according to the aim of the research study, the materials are chosen. The objects categorization consists of two settings one is the setting with 5toys and another setting with 7 toys. This would allow examining the conceptual reasoning skills in the early childhood and also late childhood. It is also hypothesized that the young children that the first group of age 3-5years would perform more poorly compared to other two groups, as they are quite immature to understand the concept behind this task or lack of reasoning skills. Thus, it is also predicted that the age differences generates different concepts and ability to shift with the concepts.

In order to conduct this study, two different trials one is practice trial and then the test trial was conducted to investigate the ability of the children to make two different groups of the toys provided to them.

Practice Trials: As a practice trail and introduction to the task, children were given five distinct plastic toys one is animals that included bear and dog and another one is fruits that included apple, banana and mango. The researcher then shows the children that these two are identical in nature but different toys. So, they need to separate them. Then, the researcher asks the students to put the vehicles on the left side of the table and animals on the right side of the table. Further, during the experiment, if a researcher finds that any child is unable to understand the instructions then they were asked to tell which rubber toys are vehicles and which are animals and then put them separately on the table.

Test Trials: After completing the practice trials with all the groups, the researcher then showed the children 7 toys that consisted of cat, deer, elephant, bug, plane, car and bike. Then, the examiner again asked each group children to separate the toys based on animals and vehicles. If a child did not know how to sort or what to sort they were taught about the objects with the help of charts.

This object categorization task included three different conditions one is explicit cueing another one is identification and free generation conditions. In explicit cueing condition, a child or a group of children who are unable to identify or sort the objects according to the categories at all were given score of 1, then group of children or a child who tried putting the toys in write place by somehow misplaced but again with write instructions, they placed the toys in right category where allotted score 2. This was identification condition. Lastly, in free generation condition, the students who placed the toys in right manner without any support was given score 3. In this way, it helps the researcher to understand which age group is able to categorize the objects properly and investigate about their reasoning skills.

Ethics in terms of research means a researcher has an ethical commitment to shield the participants from damage, pointless attack of their security, and the advancement of their prosperity. In order to conduct this research ethically, the researcher focuses on three main areas, acquiring assent, guaranteeing security from mischief, and securing privacy (Creswell, 2014). Informed consent guarantees that every member has a complete comprehension of the reason and systems utilized as a part of the study, the dangers included, and the requests of the study. Capacity is an individual’s capacity to procure and hold information. Data must be exhibited so it can be totally and completely caught on by every participant (BERA, 2011). Voluntariness guarantees each member’s capacity to work out the force of free decision without the intercession of power, extortion, duplicity, pressure, or different types of compulsion. Consent to partake will be taken from parents. Further, remembering that no individual is hurt by serving as a member in a study. Specific consideration will be taken towards children. Further, the researcher would also focus on confidentiality or privacy of the information taken or collected from the participants for this task (Desai, 2010). The researcher ensures that the information collected will just be used to complete this academic writing only not for any other commercial use (Iijima, Aleksic and Ozaki, 2011). The researcher would also focus on several other factors in ensuring the protection of members, counting the affectability of the information in perspective of the group of children  and their parents being mulled over, the setting in which the research happens, and how open the information is that is gathered and scattered (SRCD, 2007). Lastly, the researcher would also focus on termination. There is no restriction for the participants to continue with the research till end. They can terminate the deal whenever they want just 1week prior notice. The researcher makes sure that any integrity breach during execution or development of the study will seriously affect the research study (The British Psychological Society, 2010).

The researcher focuses on collecting primary data using direct observation method which is a procedure by which an evaluation group gathers information on characteristically happening conduct inside their standard setting. This is attained to by watching conditions and particular gimmicks of an influenced site from a scope of perspectives and areas to give a general perspective of the influenced territory and by taking note of these perceptions in a checklist (Vogt, 2011). The research uses the video recorder to record all the activities and behaviour of the students towards categorization of objects. Video records are coded randomly. The objects were coded according to the order in which the children touched items. Then, the researcher will make quantitative analysis on the collected data to measure effect as indicated by humanitarian markers. The reason behind using this quantitative data analysis is that it gives numeric estimates, also opportunity for fairly uncomplicated data analysis. Further, its supports the researcher for making the right conclusion as the data collected are in its reliability (Banyard and Grayson, 2008).

From, this present study and analysis of data, it is expected that age influences the categorization of object that is categorization of objects depends upon age. The children between the age group of 10-12 years are more active towards categorizing objects compared to 3-9years. The kids’ 3-5years need much support in categorizing the objects. Thus, it can be expected that categorization of objects is dependent on age.

References

Akker, J. (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.

Anaki, D. and Bentin, S. (2009). Familiarity effects on categorization levels of faces and objects. Cognition, 111(1), pp.144-149.

Augier, L. and Thibaut, J. (2013). The benefits and costs of comparisons in a novel object categorization task: Interactions with development. Psychon Bull Rev, 20(6), pp.1126-1132.

Banyard, P. and Grayson, A. (2008). Introducing psychological research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

BERA, (2011). Ethical Guidelines Foreducational Research. [online] bera.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf [Accessed 26 Feb. 2015].

Booth, A. (2008). The cause of infant categorization?. Cognition, 106(2), pp.984-993.

Bordens, K. and Abbott, B. (2011). Research design and methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bornstein, M. and Arterberry, M. (2010). The development of object categorization in young children: Hierarchical inclusiveness, age, perceptual attribute, and group versus individual analyses. Developmental Psychology, 46(2), pp.350-365.

Bornstein, M. and Mash, C. (2010). Experience-Based and On-Line Categorization of Objects in Early Infancy. Child Development, 81(3), pp.884-897.

Bornstein, M., Arterberry, M. and Mash, C. (2010). Infant object categorization transcends diverse object–context relations. Infant Behavior and Development, 33(1), pp.7-15.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Desai, M. (2010). A rights-based preventative approach for psychosocial well-being in childhood. Dordrecht: Springer.

Emadi, N. and Esteky, H. (2009). Categorization of ambiguous visual objects by macaque monkeys. Neuroscience Research, 65, p.S108.

Gaißert, N., Bülthoff, H. and Wallraven, C. (2011). Similarity and categorization: From vision to touch. Acta Psychologica.

Graham, S., Namy, L., Gentner, D. and Meagher, K. (2010). The role of comparison in preschoolers’ novel object categorization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(3), pp.280-290.

Grand, S. and Jonas, W. (2012). Mapping design research. Basel: Birkhäuser.

Iachini, T., Borghi, A. and Senese, V. (2008). Categorization and sensorimotor interaction with objects. Brain and Cognition, 67(1), pp.31-43.

Iijima, Y., Aleksic, B. and Ozaki, N. (2011). Necessity for ethical consideration of research in the aftermath of disaster. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 65(5), pp.535-536.

Ionescu, T. (2007). I Can Put It There Too!” – Flexible Object Categorization in Preschool Children and the Factors That Can Act upon It. Cognitie, Creier, Comportament, 11(4).

Jones, L., MacLure, M., Holmes, R. and MacRae, C. (2012). Children and objects: affection and infection. Early Years, 32(1), pp.49-60.

Leibe, B., Ettlin, A. and Schiele, B. (2008). Learning semantic object parts for object categorization. Image and Vision Computing, 26(1), pp.15-26.

Mack, M. (2010). Modeling categorization of scenes containing consistent versus inconsistent objects. Journal of Vision, 10(3), pp.1-11.

Mash, C. and Bornstein, M. (2011). 5-Month-Olds’ Categorization of Novel Objects: Task and Measure Dependence. Infancy, 17(2), pp.179-197.

Mash, C. and Bornstein, M. (2011). 5-Month-Olds’ Categorization of Novel Objects: Task and Measure Dependence. Infancy, 17(2), pp.179-197.

Momen, N. (2002). Children use information about how objects were made when selecting the referent of a novel word.

Nazzi, T. and Gopnik, A. (2000). A shift in children’s use of perceptual and causal cues to categorization. Developmental Science, 3(4), pp.389-396.

Quraishi, M. (2012). Research Methodlogy and its Application. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

Smidts, D., Jacobs, R. and Anderson, V. (2004). The Object Classification Task for Children (OCTC): A Measure of Concept Generation and Mental Flexibility in Early Childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(1), pp.385-401.

Son, J., Smith, L. and Goldstone, R. (2008). Simplicity and generalization: Short-cutting abstraction in children’s object categorizations. Cognition, 108(3), pp.626-638.

SRCD, (2007). SRCD Ethical Standards for Research with Children. [online] grainger.illinois.edu. Available at: https://xtf.grainger.illinois.edu:8080/xtfEthics/data/Codes/SRCD/SRCD.pdf [Accessed 26 Feb. 2015].

The British Psychological Society, (2010). Human Code and ethics. [online] bps.org.uk. Available at: https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf [Accessed 26 Feb. 2015].

Vogt, W. (2011). SAGE quantitative research methods. London: SAGE.