Advertisement

FORM AND STRUCTURE OF CHINESE CHARACTERS AND CHILDREN’S UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE

  • May May Hung ChengEmail author
Article

ABSTRACT

The written representation in Chinese can be considered as a pictorial or a symbolic representation which is very different from English where the pronunciation is related to how the word is spelt. Students face challenges of a very different nature when science is learnt in Chinese compared with English. In Hong Kong, students are making translations between the language they use in their daily lives, the science concepts and the scientific terms. The research team designed an interview protocol for primary school pupils in order to identify the pupils’ alternative concepts of science and if these alternative concepts are related to the structure of the Chinese language. The findings suggest that there are alternative conceptions related to (a) the form of the Chinese character—for example, the Chinese character for crocodile includes a radical meaning fish, and so pupils may take it that a crocodile is a fish; (b) the meaning of the Chinese character—for example, an electronic buzzer is a device used to attract bees as in Chinese, the character contains the word meaning “bees producing sound”. The findings provide important data for future endeavours aiming to compare the learning of science using different languages and on ways in which primary teachers may better facilitate their pupils in learning science.

KEY WORDS

children’s understanding of science Chinese language and science learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexakos, K. & Antoine, W. (2005). The golden age of Islam and science teaching. The Science Teacher, 72, 36–39.Google Scholar
  2. Arellano, E. L., Barcenal, T., Bilbao, P. P., Castellano, M. A., Nichols, S. & Tippins, D. J. (2001). Case-based pedagogy as a context for collaborative inquiry in the Philippines. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 502–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardwell, G. & Kincaid, E. (2005). A rationale for cultural awareness in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 72, 32–35.Google Scholar
  4. Bastide, F. (1990). The iconography of scientific texts: Principles of analysis. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 187–229). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, B. F. (1981). When is an animal not an animal? Journal of Biological Education, 15(33), 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, B. (1993). Taking into account students’ thinking. A teacher development guide. Hamilton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  7. Bernhardt, E., Hirsch, G., Teemant, A. & Rodriguez-Munoz, M. (1996). Language diversity and science: Science for limited English proficiency students. In Science learning for all: Celebrating cultural diversity (pp. 58–61). Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chiu, M.-H. (2007). A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colburn, A. & Echevarria, J. (1999). Meaningful lessons: All students benefit from integrating English with science. In Science learning for all: Celebrating cultural diversity (pp. 58–61). Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deadman, J. A. & Kelly, P. J. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12(1), 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farenga, S. J., Joyce, B. A. & Ness, D. (2003). Balancing the equity equation: The importance of experience and culture in science learning. Science Scope, 26, 12–15.Google Scholar
  13. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Han, Y. & Ginsburg, H. P. (2001). Chinese and English mathematics language: The relation between linguistic clarity and mathematics performance. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(2–3), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanes, C. (2004). Chemistry as a second language. The Science Teacher, 71, 42–45.Google Scholar
  16. Harlen, W. (2002). Taking children’s ideas seriously—Influences and trends. NZ Science Teacher, 101, 15–18.Google Scholar
  17. Hsu, L. R. (2004). A study of conceptual formation on classification of chemical property. Annual Report to the National Science Council in Taiwan (in Chinese). Taiwan: National Science Council. Quoted in Chiu, M.-H. (2007). A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421–425.Google Scholar
  18. Hsu, P.-L. & Yang, W.-G. (2007). Print and image integration of science texts and reading comprehension: A systemic functional linguistic perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 639–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly, G. J. & Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science & Education, 77(2), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ku, Y.-M. & Anderson, R. C. (2001). Chinese children’s incidental learning of word meanings. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kumashiro, K. K. (2001). “Posts” perspectives on anti-oppressive education in social studies, English, mathematics and science classrooms. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Learning, language, and values. New York: Alex Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Lyle, K. S., & Robinson, W. R. (2002). Talking about science. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(1), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li, C., Nuttall, R. & Zhao, S. (1999). The effect of writing Chinese characters on success on the water-level task. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(1), 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Livingston, E. (1995). An anthropology of reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science: Focusing on NOS in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 24–27.Google Scholar
  28. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Miura, I. T., Okamoto, Y., Kim, C. C., Chang, C. M. & Okamoto, Y. (1988). Effects of language characteristics on children’s cognitive representation of number: Cross-national comparisons. Child Development, 59(6), 1445–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olson, D. R. (1995). Writing and the mind. In J. Wertsch, P. del Río, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 95–123). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pozzer, L. L. & Roth, W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Ryman, D. (1974a). Children’s understanding of the classification of living organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 8, 140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryman, D. (1974b). The relative effectiveness of teaching methods on pupils’ understanding of the classification of living organisms at two levels of intelligence. Journal of Biological Education, 8, 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaefer, G. (1979). Concept formation in biology: The concept of ‘growth’. European Journal of Science Education, 1(1), 87–101.Google Scholar
  36. Shu, H. & Anderson, R. C. (1997). Role of radical awareness in the character and word acquisition of Chinese children. Reading Research Quaterly, 32(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Solano-Flores, G. & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Takemura, S., Manzano, V.U. & Fajardo, A.C. (1996). Cross-cultural study on childrens view of science. Paper presented on NSTA’s Global Summit on Science and Science Education—A Bridge to a Sustainable World, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  40. Tamir, P., Gal-Choppin, R. & Nussinovitz, R. (1981). How do intermediate and junior high school students conceptualize living and non-living. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trowbridge, J. E. & Mintzes, J. J. (1985). Students’ alternative conceptions of animals and animal classification. School Science and Mathematics, 85, 304–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Villegas, A. M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, J. & Lin, E. (2005). Comparative studies on U.S. and Chinese Mathematics learning and the implications for standards-based mathematics teaching reform. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations