THE ROLE OF MEDIATORS IN EPISTEMIC OBSERVATION

Especially on transformational representation

Abstract

The present study aimed at demonstrating the role of relevant mediators in epistemic observation of spatial transformation. It was hypothesized that effectiveness of the observation depends on availability of relevant mediators.
A simplified version of Piaget's “3-mountains-experiment” was undertaken. In place of the 3 mountains, 2 objects, i. e., a ball and a pin were used.
My previous study, from which the hypothesis was derived, revealed Ss felt it the most difficult to imagine the sight from the position opposite their own. Most of the mistakes were committed concerning the left-right relation of the 2 objects. If Ss could not imagine the sight from other angles correctly, they were asked to go down to the place and to confirm the sight by their own eyes. This procedure of empirical confirmation was effective for some children, but completely ineffective for others.
The present experiment was undertaken to identify mediators which will make the observation more effective. Two kinds of mediators were selected. One was a verbal mediator. It was anticipated that verbal labels of “left” and “right” can be used as mediators. Ss were classified into 3 categories (+, -, and intermediate) according to their abilities to encode the objects or the relation between them in terms of “left right”, and to deal with the objects following instructions involving the terms.
The other mediator was essentially non-verbal. Its availability was diagnosed according to utilization of left-right cues in a concept learning situation. The cues can be utilized when Ss can persistently attend to these aspects. A simple concept learning experiment, using a set of stimuli with 3 variable dimensions, was given to Ss. They were classified into 2 categories (+ & -).
All Ss were 6-year-olds. According to the relevant mediators, 4 groups of Ss were selected. They were exposed to a training session which consisted of the observation of the sights from different viewpoints. In the session, a child was required to anticipate the sight, then to go to the place and to confirm his anticipation. No verbal explanation was given to Ss.
The results are as follows. Many of Ss of A & C grs., made progress. B & D grs. had a small number of successful learners. It is evident that the non-verbal mediator, which facilitated cue utilization in concept learning, was really an effective mediator in the observation. The verbal mediator, on the other hand, had no differentiating effect, since there was no difference between A gr. and B gr., or C gr. and D gr. It can be interpreted that the verbal mediator was effective only when the observation was accompanied by verbal description or explanation of the phenomenon.