FIGURE 17 (S1106M): Pseudoconceptual inconsistencies when size or height is noted almost immediately, in combination with chain-like groupings

The eleven-year-old participant in Figure 17 (S1106M) “solved” the problem of the blocks in nine minutes, with two turned blocks and 19 to confirm his approach. It would, on the surface of it, seem that this participant was exceptionally logical and abstract in his approach: however, how the participant went about his approach to the blocks, and what he said about it (and what he didn’t), was far more indicative of his mode of thinking.

For example, this participant began by selecting the lag triangle and immediately turning it over. I asked him to try not to just turn the blocks over and, because he then hesitated, I asked him what he could tell me about the name of the newly turned block. He said “I don’t know”, and required prompting to find a new corner for the lag blocks to be placed. It could be said that at this early stage of his session the participant was still finding out about what the problem-solving activity involved: however, after placing a lag block in the lag corner, and a lag into the mur corner, he asked “What must go here?” (in the other two corners), to which I answered “The other two groups”. These two interactions indicated to me that had the participant been operating in a truly conceptual mode, he would have realised for himself the implications of a differently named block, and would have remembered from the introduction that four groups were required. Further, as this participant continued, he assembled the four groups in chain-like association of shape, similar shape, and colour, with a measure of size being increasingly taken into consideration.

This participant had selected the blue bik circle (bottom left) and the white mur hexagon (subsequently moved to the mur group) as “starter” blocks for two new groups. At that stage, he had placed the yellow lag trapezoid next to the lag exemplar (bottom right, similar shape and height?), and an orange lag square next to the mur exemplar (colour and height?).

At this juncture, I thought it possible that he would continue to select blocks in terms of height and size, but he didn’t. His next moves were in chains of three squares to the mur group (shape); the hexagons and two circles to the cev group (similar shape); and the flat circles, hexagon and semi-circle to the nameless group (similar shape, bottom left). As each block was added to the group, or moved from one to another group, it was done so in a link from the first block to the next in terms of shape, similar shape, and colour. The photograph in Figure 17 was taken after the participant had moved three mur blocks (two circles and the hexagon) into the mur group (increasing attention to height). He placed the white bik square into the empty space, and in moving the cev triangle into this group (shape), it was accidentally turned over. The participant was asked to read its name: he did so and made no comment about it. He then added the cev trapezoid (similar shape), the blue cev triangle (shape) to the cev group. The next block in the chain, the green lag square, was placed in the lag group (shape and size?), which was followed by selecting the next green block, the bik trapezoid, and placing it into the bik group. Following this chain (from green to green to same shape), the orange lag trapezoid (same shape) was placed in the bik group.

This participant’s explanations for his sorting were as follows: The mur blocks were described as “all the same height and kind of like the same round… [and] the flatness”. Then he said “I did the same with this [lag] one”, ignoring the flat bik square. His explanation for the bik group (still to be named) was “These are all the thin ones” and for the cev group that “…most of the small ones [are] here” but did not until later notice the muddle of large flat blocks and small flat ones.

Had this participant been operating with two clearly formed abstracted characteristics (as opposed to perceptually dominated guidance and one unclearly formulated notion of height), he would have been led to make the observation that size and height were the defining features of the sorting principle. His perceptual interaction with the characteristics of the blocks was not that he had noticed certain characteristics of the blocks and formulated his approach on the basis of this abstract and logical mode (ie, he was not dealing conceptually with height and size), because at no stage did he advance “hypotheses” of any kind. He was dealing with blocks, not with conceptually abstracted characteristics; he was putting blocks into groups because they looked the same in some way (sometimes shape, sometimes similar shape, sometimes colour, and with some idea of height). I found it very difficult to distinguish this perceptual and preconceptual mode of approach from truly logical and conceptual abstract thinking. Even so, it was my conclusion that the participant S1106M was making connections between physical characteristics, not truly conceptual ones (he also required prompting in the transference exercise and was only able to correctly transfer one of the names).