Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 433–465 | Cite as

Tracing Young Children's Scientific Reasoning

  • Russell Tytler
  • Suzanne Peterson
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the scientific reasoning of 14 children across their first two years of primary school. Children's view of experimentation, their approach to exploration, and their negotiation of competing knowledge claims, are interpreted in terms of categories of epistemological reasoning. Children's epistemological reasoning is distinguished from their ability to control variables. While individual children differ substantially, they show a relatively steady growth in their reasoning, with some contextual variation. A number of these children are reasoning at a level well in advance of curriculum expectations, and it is argued that current recommended practice in primary science needs to be rethought. The data is used to explore the relationship between reasoning and knowledge, and to argue that the generation and exploration of ideas must be the key driver of scientific activity in the primary school.

conceptual change learning and development science inquiry science investigations science process scientific epistemology scientific reasoning student conceptions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ATSE Education Committee. (2002). The teaching of science & technology in Australian primary schools: A cause for concern. Parkville, Victoria, Australia: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. http://www.atse.org.au/ retrieved January 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Brewer, W., & Samarapungavan, A. (1991). Children's theories versus scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge? In R. Hoffman & D. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 209–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Carey, S. (1985a). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carey, S. (1985b). Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults? In S. Chipman, J. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 2, pp. 485–514). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514–529.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84.Google Scholar
  7. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science – from behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Duschl, R., & Gitomer, D. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 839–858.Google Scholar
  10. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  11. Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (1999). Understanding scientific evidence. RetrievedDecember 2002 from http://www.dur.ac.uk/~ded0www/ evidence_main1.htmGoogle Scholar
  12. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). New York: Basic Books (Original work published 1955).Google Scholar
  13. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, D. (1997). Developmental psychology and science education. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 141–150.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Leach, J. (1999). Students' understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 789–806.Google Scholar
  17. Metz, K. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.Google Scholar
  18. Metz, K. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children's science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 151–163.Google Scholar
  19. Metz, K., & Tang, K. (1998, April). Children's differentiation of observation and inference and theory and evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  20. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Piaget, J. (1954/1976). La construction du réel chez l'enfant. (The childs' construction of reality) (Trans M. Cooh.) Neuchâtel, France: Delachaux and Niestlé.Google Scholar
  23. Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Olson, D., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children's understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development, 64, 1617–1636.Google Scholar
  24. Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children's judgments in theory choice tasks: Scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45, 1–32.Google Scholar
  25. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882.Google Scholar
  26. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.Google Scholar
  27. Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753–766.Google Scholar
  28. Strike, K., & Posner, G. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176).Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  29. Tytler, R. (1998). Children's conceptions of air pressure: Exploring the nature of conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 929–958.Google Scholar
  30. Tytler, R., & Swatton, P. (1992). A critique of attainment target 1 based on case studies of students' investigations. School Science Review, 74(266), 21–35.Google Scholar
  31. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815–832.Google Scholar
  32. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2000). Deconstructing learning in science: Young children's responses to a classroom sequence on evaporation. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 339–355.Google Scholar
  33. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (in press). From 'try it and see' to strategic exploration: Characterising young children's scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  34. Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (submitted). A longitudinal study into children's science learning. Research in Science Education (Special edition on longitudinal studies into student learning in science).Google Scholar
  35. Watson, R., Goldsworthy, A., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1999). What is not fair with investigations? School Science Review, 80(292), 101–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell Tytler
    • 1
  • Suzanne Peterson
    • 1
  1. 1.Deakin UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations