Abstract
There is considerable evidence that use of anthropomorphism and animism in science teaching is a common practice in all grades of education. However, not much is known about teachers' own views on the real reasons why they have been using animistic and anthropomorphic formulations or on the issue of whether animism and anthropomorphism should or should not be used in science. The present work, which was carried out in Greece, investigates early years teachers' views on the use of animism and anthropomorphism and on the reasons behind their use of these formulations. The study was designed as a small-scale exploration study. Research data were obtained from recorded group interviews and from written tasks. Results indicate that early years teachers seem to adopt the view that animism and anthropomorphism in early years science can cause cognitive problems in young children, and also that these teachers believe that in special cases use of animism and anthropomorphism can cause emotional problems as well. Results also reveal that, despite their reservations, teachers use animism and anthropomorphism both consciously and unconsciously and that they attribute their conscious use of these formulations to their low levels of content and pedagogical content knowledge in science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell, C. R. (1954). Additional data on animistic thinking. Scientific Monthly, 79, 67–69.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1997). Research methods of education. London: Routledge.
Crannell, C. N. (1954). Responses of college students to a questionnaire on animistic thinking. Scientific Monthly, 78, 54–56.
Crowell, D. H., & Dole, A. A. (1957). Animism and college students. Journal of Educational Research, 50, 391–395.
Dennis, W. (1953). Animistic thinking among college and university students. Scientific Monthly, 76, 247–249.
Dennis, W. (1957). Animistic thinking among college and high school students in the Near East. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 193–198.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649–672.
Friedler, Y., Zohar, A., & Tamir, P. (1993). The effect of age and of learning on the ability to distinguish between anthropomorphic and teleological explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 439–443.
Gallant, R. A. (1981). Pitfalls of personification. Science and Children, 19(2), 16–17.
Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Muth, K. D. (1989). Analogical reasoning and problem solving in science textbooks. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), A handbook of creativity: Assessment, research and theory. New York: Plenum.
Hampel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanations. New York: Free Press.
Howard, R. (1989). Teaching science with metaphors. School Science Review, 70(252), 100–103.
Hughes, A. (1973). Anthropomorphism, teleology, animism, and personification-why they should be avoided. Science and Children, 10, 10–11
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1987). Young children's spontaneous personification as analogy. Child Development, 58, 1013–1020.
Kallery, M. (2001). Early-years educators' attitudes to science and pseudo-science: The case of astronomy and astrology. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(3), 329–342.
Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2001). Preschool teachers' content knowledge in science: Their understanding of elementary science concepts and of issues raised by children's questions. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(3), 165–179.
Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2002). What happens in the early years science classroom? The reality of teachers curriculum implementation activities. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10(2), 49–61.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Thinking science: Language learning and values. Norwood, MA: Ablex.
Lowrie, D. E. (1954). Additional data on animistic thinking, Scientific Monthly, 79, 69–70.
Looft, W. R., & Bartz, H. (1969). Animism revived. Psychological Bulletin, 71(1), 1–19.
Papalia-Finlay, D. E. (1978). The life concept in female college students: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7(2), 133–139.
Piaget, J. (1951). The child's conception of the world. Savage, MD: Littlefield Adams.
Sharefkin, B., & Ruchlis, H. (1974). Anthropomorphismin the lower grades. Science and Children, 11(6), 37–40.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Simmons, A. J., & Goss, A. E. (1957). Animistic responses as a function of sentence contexts and instructions. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 91, 181–189.
Taber, K. S. (1995). An analogy for discussing progression in learning chemistry. School Science Review, 76(276), 91–95.
Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (1996). The secret life of the chemical bond: Students' anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 557–568.
Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75(1), 57–67.
Treagust, D. F., & Harrison, A. G. (2000). In search of explanatory frameworks: An analysis of Richard Feynman's lecture 'Atoms in motion.' International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1157–1170.
Watts, M., & Bentley, D. (1994). Humanizing and feminising school science: reviving anthropomorphic and animistic thinking in constructivist science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 83–97.
Zohar, A, & Ginossar, S. (1998). Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in biology education-heretical suggestions. Science Education, 82(6), 679–697.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kallery, M., Psillos, D. Anthropomorphism and Animism in Early Years Science: Why Teachers Use Them, how They Conceptualise Them and What Are Their Views on Their Use. Research in Science Education 34, 291–311 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000044613.64634.03
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000044613.64634.03