Abstract
This paper reports on 6–11-year-old children’s ‘sayings and doings’ (Harré 2002) as they explore molecule artefacts in dialectical-interactive teaching interviews (Fleer, Cultural Studies of Science Education 3:781–786, 2008; Hedegaard et al. 2008). This sociocultural study was designed to explore children’s everyday awareness of and meaning-making with cultural molecular artefacts. Our everyday world is populated with an ever increasing range of molecular or nanoworld words, symbols, images, and games. What do children today say about these artefacts that are used to represent molecular world entities? What are the material and social resources that can influence a child’s everyday and developing scientific ideas about ‘molecules’? How do children interact with these cognitive tools when given expert assistance? What meaning-making is afforded when children are socially and materially assisted in using molecular tools in early chemical and nanoworld thinking? Tool-dependent discursive studies show that provision of cultural artefacts can assist and direct developmental thinking across many domains of science (Schoultz et al., Human Development 44:103–118, 2001; Siegal 2008). Young children’s use of molecular artefacts as cognitive tools has not received much attention to date (Jakab 2009a, b). This study shows 6–11-year-old children expressing everyday ideas of molecular artefacts and raising their own questions about the artefacts. They are seen beginning to domesticate (Erneling 2010) the words, symbols, and images to their own purposes when given the opportunity to interact with such artefacts in supported activity. Discursive analysis supports the notion that using ‘molecules’ as cultural tools can help young children to begin ‘putting on molecular spectacles’ (Kind 2004). Playing with an interactive game (ICT) is shown to be particularly helpful in assisting children’s early meaning-making with representations of molecules, atoms, and their chemical symbols.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Participant self-selected pseudonyms are used throughout this paper.
References
Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2006). Privileging and artifacts: on the use of information technology in science education. Interchange, 37(3), 225–250. doi:10.1007/s10780-006-9002-z.
Arievitch, I. M. (2007). An activity theory perspective on educational technology and learning. In D. W. Kritt & L. T. Winegar (Eds.), Education and technology: Critical perspectives, possible futures (pp. 49–88). Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. London: Athlone.
Bickhard, M. H. (2007). Learning is scaffolded instruction. In D. W. Kritt & L. T. Winegar (Eds.), Education and technology: Critical perspectives, possible futures (pp. 73–88). Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Casti, J. (1997). Would be worlds: How simulation is changing the frontiers of science. Toronto: Wiley.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.). (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky. New York: CUP.
DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2/3), 105–225.
Erneling, C. (1995). Language development. In R. Harré & P. Stearns (Eds.), Discursive psychology in practice (pp. 164–182). London: SAGE.
Erneling, C. E. (2010). Towards discursive education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fensham, P. (1994). Beginning to teach chemistry. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 14–28). London: Falmer.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. Milton Park, Oxon: Routledge.
Fleer, M. (2008). A cultural-historical reading of “culturally sensitive schooling”: thinking beyond a constructivist view of science learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 781–786.
Gauvain, M. (2001). Cultural tools, social interaction and the development of thinking. Human Development, 44(2/3), 126–143.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence, Erlbaum.
Girod, M., & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Deweyan) perspective on science learning: case studies of three fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 199–224.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Harré, R. (2002). Cognitive science: A philosophical introduction. London: SAGE.
Harré, R., & Tissaw, M. A. (2005). Wittgenstein and psychology: A practical guide. Aldershot: Ashgate Pub. Co.
Harré, R., & van Langenhove, L. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hedegaard, M., & Lompscher, J. (1999). Learning activity and development. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Hedegaard, M., Fleer, M., Bang, J., & Hviid, P. (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical approach. New York: Open University Press.
Jakab, C. (2009a). ‘I can see molecules’: Children’s everyday ideas of particles of matter. The University of Melbourne. Unpublished paper presented at ASERA, Geelong, July 2009.
Jakab, C. (2009b). ‘Molecule’ Artifacts: Cultural tools for child development. Refereed paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, December, Canberra, JAK091456.
Jakab, C. (2010). Children using ‘molecules’ for thinking. University of Melbourne. Unpublished paper presented at Australian Science Education Research Association Conference , July, Shoal Bay.
Kind, V. (2004). Beyond Appearances: Students’ misconceptions about basic chemical ideas: A report prepared for the Royal Society of Chemistry, http://modeling.asu.edu/modeling/KindVanessaBarkerchem.pdf
Kritt, D. W., & Winegar, L. T. (Eds.). (2007). Education and technology: Critical perspectives, possible futures. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leisten, J. (1995). Teach atoms earlier. School Science Review, 77(297), 23–27.
Lemke, J. (1998). Teaching all the languages of science: words, symbols, images and actions. Retreived 23 March 2009, from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/barcelon.htm
Lui, X., & Lesniak, K. (2006). Progression of children’s understanding of the matter concept from elementary to high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 320–347.
Margel, H., Eylon, B. S., & Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’ conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 132–152.
Pugh, K. J., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art, and experience: constructing a science pedagogy from dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 9–27.
Redman,C. (2004). Meaning making with real time images of earth in space. Unpublished PhD thesis, Melbourne, The University of Melbourne.
Redman, C., & Fawns, R. (2010). How to use pronoun grammar analysis as a methodological tool for understanding the dynamic lived space of people. In S. Rodrigues (Ed.), Using analytical frameworks for classroom research: Collecting data and analysing narrative (pp. 163–182). New York: Routledge.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary: towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 101–120.
Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly Talk: discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103–118.
Shatzki, T. R. (2001). Subject, body, place. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(4), 698–702.
Siegal, M. (2008). Marvelous minds: The discovery of what children know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siegal, M., & Surian, L. (2004). Conceptual development and conversational understanding. Trends in cognitive science, 8(12), 534–538.
Skamp, K. (2011). Teaching chemistry in primary science: what does the research suggest? Teaching Science, 57(4), 37–43.
Stocklmayer S. M. & Bryant, C. (2011). Science and the public - What should people know? International Journal of Science education Part B. 1. 1-21 ifirst (online)/11/000001–21
Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining Science Education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Camberwell: Australian Education Review.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., & Peterson, S. (2007). Representational issues in student learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 313–331.
Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. NY: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), Problems of general psychology (trans: N. Minick). New York: Plentum Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: a sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601–623.
Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (p. p205). New York: Routledge.
Woolgar, S., Coopmans, C., & Neyland, D. (2009). Does STS mean business? Organisation, 16(1), 5–30.
Acknowledgements
My sincerest thanks to Dr Christine Redman for all her ongoing support during the conceptualising and development of this paper. Research supported by Melbourne Research Scholarship grant. A version of this paper was presented at Australian Science Education Research Association Conference July 2011, Adelaide.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jakab, C. Small Talk: Children’s Everyday ‘Molecule’ Ideas. Res Sci Educ 43, 1307–1325 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9305-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9305-2