Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 187–210 | Cite as

Preschool Children's Explanations of Plant Growth and Rain Formation: A Comparative Analysis

  • Vasilia Christidou
  • Vassilia Hatzinikita
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the different types and characteristics of preschool children's explanations of plant growth and rain formation. The children's explanations were categorized as naturalistic, non-naturalistic, or synthetic, i.e., explanations containing both naturalistic and non-naturalistic parts. In regards to plant growth the children tended to rely on synthetic or on naturalistic explanations, which involved direct and indirect agents (such as water, a person, fertilizers, roots) enabling the plant to grow. Non-naturalistic explanations of plant growth, or the non-naturalistic parts of synthetic explanations, were mainly animistic (anthropomorphic). In the case of rain formation the children most frequently used non-naturalistic explanations, which were mainly teleological or metaphysical. The naturalistic explanations recorded on rain formation, as well as the naturalistic parts of synthetic explanations tended to have a non-agentive character, i.e., children considered rainwater as preexisting in containers such as the clouds. Overall, the explanations recorded about plant growth tended to be more complex than the ones for rain formation. It is suggested that science activities designed for preschool children should take into account the types and characteristics of their explanations in order to select which phenomena are appropriate for this age group, and aim at fostering the children's ability at formulating naturalistic explanations.

Key Words

animism causal agent metaphysical explanation naturalistic explanation non-naturalistic explanation plant growth rain formation synthetic explanation teleology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, B. (1990). Pupils' conception of matter and its transformations (age 12–16). Studies in Science Education, 18, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backscheider, A. G., Shatz, M., & Gelman, S. A. (1993). Preschoolers' ability to distinguish living kinds as a function of regrowth. Child Development, 64, 1242–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar, V. (1989). Children's views about the water cycle. Science Education, 73(4), 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, M. (1995). A plant is an animal standing on its head. Journal of Biological Education, 29(3), 201–208.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, B. (1985). Students' ideas about plant nutrition: What are they? Journal of Biological Education, 19(3), 213–218.Google Scholar
  6. Berzonsky, M. D. (1971). The role of familiarity in children's explanations of physical causality. Child Development, 42, 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blalock, H. M. (1987). Social statistics. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Brewer, W. F., Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (1998). Explanation in scientists and children. Minds and Machines, 8, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brosnan, T. (1990). Categorising macro and micro explanations of natural change. In P. L. Lijnse, P. Light, W. de Vos & A. J. Waarlo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seminar Relating Macroscopic Phenomena to Microscopic Particles. A Central Problem in Secondary Science Education (pp. 198–211). Utrecht: CD-β Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: The MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cumming, J. (2003). Do runner beans really make you run fast? Young children learning about science-related food concepts in informal settings. Research in Science Education, 33(4), 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donaldson, M. L., & Elliot, A. (1990). Children's explanations. In R. Grieve & M. Hughes (Eds.), Understanding children. Oxford: Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Erickson, B., & Nosanchuk, T. (1985). Understanding data. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fleer, M. (1993). Science education in child care. Science Education, 77(6), 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2003). Understanding our youngest scientific and technological thinkers: International developments in Early Childhood Science Education (Editorial). Research in Science Education, 33, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelman, S. A., & Kremer, K. E. (1991). Understanding natural cause: Children's explanations of how objects and their properties originate. Child Development, 62, 396–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students' misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203–211.Google Scholar
  19. Hatzinikita, V. (1995). Pupils' representations on changes of matter: Types, causal relations, and mechanisms. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Patras (Greece): University of Patras, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Henriques, L. (2000). Children's misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA, April 29.Google Scholar
  21. Hickling, A. K., & Wellman, H. M. (2001). The emergence of children's causal explanations and theories: Evidence from everyday conversation. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 668–683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1993). Young children's understanding of the mind-body distinction. Child Development, 64, 1534–1549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelemen, D. (1999a). Why are rocks pointy? Children's preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1440–1452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelemen, D. (1999b). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Koslowski, B., & Okagaki, L. (1986). Non-Humean indices of causation in problem-solving situations: Causal mechanism, analogous effects, and the status of rival alternative accounts. Child Development, 57, 1100–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Metz, K. (1991). Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children's physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 785–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 62, 93–127.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs – Pedagogical Institute (2001). Diathematiko Eniaio Plesio Programmatos Spoudon (DEPPS). Retrieved June 6, 2003 from http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/index.html.
  30. Murayama, I. (1994). Role of agency in causal understanding of natural phenomena. Human Development, 37, 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children's beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nass, M. L. (1956). The effects of three variables on children's concepts of physical causality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 53, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2000). Do teachers support causal understanding through their discourse when teaching primary science? British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newton, D. P., Newton, L. D., Blake, A., & Brown, K. (2002). Do primary school science books for children show a concern for explanatory understanding? Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  36. Ogborn, J. (1985). Understanding students' understandings: An example from dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 141–150.Google Scholar
  37. O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education; Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 791–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  39. Piaget, J. (1930). The child's conception of physical causality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Pramling, N., & Pramling-Samuelson, I. (2001). “It is floating 'cause there is a hole:” A young child's experience of natural science. Early Years, 21(2), 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schult, C. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1997). Explaining human movements and actions: Children's understanding of the limits of psychological explanation. Cognition, 62, 291–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Springer, K., & Keil, F. C. (1991). Early differentiation of causal mechanisms appropriate to biological and nonbiological kinds. Child Development, 62, 767–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stavy, R., Eisen, Y., & Yaakobi, D. (1987). How students aged 13–15 understand photosynthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stepans, J. & Kuehn, C. (1985). Children's conceptions of weather. Science and Children September, 44–47.Google Scholar
  45. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2003). Tracing young children's scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 33, 433–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Venville, G., Adey, P., Larkin, S., & Robertson, A. (2003). Fostering thinking through science in the early years of schooling. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1313–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wandersee, J. (1983). Students misconceptions about photosynthesis: A cross age study. In H. Helm & J. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Seminar of Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca: Cornel University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wolfinger, D. M. (1982). Effect of science teaching on the young child's concept of Piagetian physical causality: Animism and dynamism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(7), 595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pre-school EducationUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  2. 2.School of HumanitiesHellenic Open UniversityPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations