Is tool-making knowledge robust over time and across problems?

Abstract

In three studies, we explored the retention and transfer of tool-making knowledge, learnt from an adult demonstration, to other temporal and task contexts. All studies used a variation of a task in which children had to make a hook tool to retrieve a bucket from a tall transparent tube. Children who failed to innovate the hook tool independently saw a demonstration. In Study 1, we tested children aged 4–6 years (N = 53) who had seen the original demonstration 3 months earlier. Performance was excellent at the second time, indicating that children’s knowledge was retained over the 3 month period. In Studies 2 and 3 we explored transfer of the new knowledge to other tasks. In Study 2, children were given two variants of the apparatus that differed in surface characteristics (e.g., shape and color). Participants generalized their knowledge to these new apparatuses even though the new pipecleaner also differed in size and color. Five- to 6-year-olds (N = 22) almost always transferred their knowledge to problems where the same tool had to be made. Younger, 3- to 5-year-olds’ (N = 46), performance was more variable. In Study 3, 4- to 7-year-olds (N = 146) saw a demonstration of hook making with a pipecleaner, but then had to make a tool by combining pieces of wooden dowel (or vice versa: original training on dowel, transfer to pipecleaner). Children did not transfer their tool-making knowledge to the new material. Children retained tool-making knowledge over time and transferred their knowledge to new situations in which they needed to make a similar tool from similar materials, but not different materials. We concluded that children’s ability to use tool-making knowledge in novel situations is likely to depend on memory and analogical reasoning, with the latter continuing to develop during middle childhood.

Involvement of Technical Reasoning More Than Functional Knowledge in Development of Tool Use in Childhood

“…So this partial effect of apparatus that do not share the same technical principles suggests that technical analysis is done in the here and now. This is consistent with the results of Beck et al (2014), who reported no transfer of knowledge for the Hook task with different means and materials. Another explanation could be that there is an effect of complexity between the different mechanical problems used, since performance in the Sloping task is clearly inferior to that obtained in the other apparatus, whatever the age group.…”

“…Recent studies have, however, reported a striking dissociation between these early skills and the subsequent emergence of tool-making abilities in children. Studies have shown on multiple occasions that making a functional tool independently (i.e., without any demonstration, called “tool innovation” below) is nearly impossible in healthy children before the age of 5 years (Beck et al, 2011, 2014; Cutting et al, 2011) irrespective of their socio-cultural environment (Nielsen et al, 2014). The task commonly employed consists in recovering a target that is lodged inside a transparent tube and that cannot be reached directly by hand (e.g., the Hook task, Unbending task).…”

“…On the other hand, following a demonstration by the investigator of how to make a functional tool (i.e., demonstrated how to bend a rod into a hook), the children can generally reproduce and use tools from age 3 onward, thereby revealing that they have sufficient dexterity to solve the problem (Chappell et al, 2013). Thus, the dexterity is sufficient from age 3, and the selection of a functional tool seems to occur in children from age 4, for solving a problem involving tool making (Beck et al, 2014). So, it is not likely that these factors explain a development of tool innovation abilities up to 16–17 years of age.…”

Joint and individual tool making in preschoolers: From social to cognitive processes

“…The experimental procedure of the hook task included one warm‐up and three tool‐making phases. A similar procedure was used by Cutting et al () [also see Beck et al () for the wooden sticks or dowels]. In this study, the wooden sticks were preferred as they could motivate dyadic interaction.…”

“…In the two studies reported here, we aim to reveal social, representational, and creative factors underlying preschoolers’ tool‐making ability. We used Beck et al’s (, ) hook task, with wooden sticks. Individual children and/or dyads were given the opportunity to solve the task in one of three experimental phases.…”