Premium
Karmiloff‐Smith's RRM distinction between adjunctions and redescriptions: It's about time (and children's drawings)
Author(s) -
Hollis Steve,
Low Jason
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
british journal of developmental psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.062
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 2044-835X
pISSN - 0261-510X
DOI - 10.1348/026151005x35390
Subject(s) - flexibility (engineering) , psychology , task (project management) , intervention (counseling) , developmental psychology , psychological intervention , cognitive flexibility , cognitive psychology , mental representation , cognition , statistics , mathematics , management , neuroscience , psychiatry , economics
A sample of 315 children aged between 6 and 9 years participated in a 5‐month longitudinal study aimed at investigating constraints on representational flexibility as observed in drawing behaviour. The study specifically looked at how external interventions affected children's representations over time. The intervention involved showing children various examples of pretend people in relation to Karmiloff‐Smith's (1990) task of requesting children to operate on their normal person drawing procedures. The study confirmed that knowledge introduced exogenously was only beneficial immediately after the intervention. Over time, in contrast to the older children, the younger children reverted to their internal representations that were specified as sequentially fixed lists. The intervention did not promote transfer of learning to the analogous task of drawing pretend houses. The study suggests that exogenous provocations of behaviour are driven by adjunctions, and that reiterated cycles of representational redescription must occur before the externally mediated knowledge becomes flexibly manipulable.