Abstract
Research has shown that children usually provide teleological explanations for the features of organisms from a very early age (3–4 years old). However, it is not clear if teleology is applied selectively for organisms, or if it is generally applied to other objects as well (artifacts and non-living natural objects). The present study examined whether 7–8 year old students provided teleological explanations for particular organisms, artifacts and natural objects. We investigated whether children's familiarity with these objects influenced the types of explanations they gave. Finally, we also investigated correlations between 'teleology' and 'usefulness' in children's explanations. The results indicate that 7–8 year olds are able to distinguish between living and non-living entities, as well as that they provide teleological explanations mostly for organisms and artifacts. This may have important implications for biological education, since teleological explanations in classrooms are likely to pose important conceptual obstacles to the development of a scientific understanding of evolution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ariew, A. (2003). Ernst Mayr’s ‘Ultimate/Proximate’ distinction reconsidered and reconstructed. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 553–565.
Ariew, A. (2007). Teleology. In D. Hull & M. Ruse (Eds.), Cambridge companion to the philosophy of biology (pp. 160–181). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Avise, J. C. (2010). Inside the human genome: A case for non-intelligent design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D. S. (2007). Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science, 316, 996–997.
Branch, G., & Scott, E. C. (2009). The latest face of Creationism. Scientific American, 300(1), 92–99.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 13–19.
Curry, A. (2009). Creationist beliefs persist in Europe. Science, 323, 1159.
DiYanni, C., & Kelemen, D. (2005). Time to get a new mountain? The role of function in children’s conceptions of natural kinds. Cognition, 97, 325–335.
Elder, C. L. (2007). On the place of artifacts in ontology. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 33–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, E. M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 263–294). New York: Routledge.
Graebsch, A., & Schiermeier, Q. (2006). Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe. Nature, 444, 406–407.
Greif, M., Kemler-Nelson, D., Keil, F. C., & Guiterrez, F. (2006). What do children want to know about animals and artifacts?: Domain-specific requests for information. Psychological Science, 17(6), 455–459.
Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry. A handbook for teachers—researchers. Portsmouth: Heinmann.
Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17(1), 27–47.
Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: a basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340.
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keil, F. C. (1992). The origins of an autonomous biology. In M. R. Gunnar & M. Maratsos (Eds.), Modularity and constraints in language and cognition. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 25) (pp. 103–138). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Keil, F. C. (1994). The birth and nurturance concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 234–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keil, F. C. (1995). The growth of causal understanding of natural kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multi-disciplinary debate (pp. 234–262). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kelemen, D. (1999a). Function, goals and intention: children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 461–468.
Kelemen, D. (1999b). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70, 241–272.
Kelemen, D. (1999c). Why are rocks pointy?: children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1440–1452.
Lennox, J. G. (1992). Teleology. In E. F. Keller & E. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 324–333). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lewens, T. (2004). Organisms and artifacts: Design in nature and elsewhere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506.
Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Vasalos, A. (2009). Supporting presence in teacher education: the connection between the personal and professional aspects of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 297–308.
Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.
Numbers, R. (2009). That Creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon. In R. Numbers (Ed.), Galileo goes to jail, and other myths about science and religion (pp. 215–223). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.
Smith, M. U. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. pedagogical issues. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 539–571.
Sommers, T., & Rosenberg, A. (2003). Darwin’s nihilistic idea: evolution and the meaninglessness of life. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 653–668.
Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anselmo, J. (2001). Understanding. students’ explanations of biological phenomena: conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85, 328–348.
Walsh, D. (2008). Teleology. In M. Ruse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology (pp. 113–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, G. C. (2001/1996). Plan and purpose in nature: The limits of Darwinian evolution. London: Phoenix.
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to Dimitra Tsetsou and Vassiliki Zerva for their assistance in data collection and data coding. We also thank Aggeliki Zacharaki, Dora Christodoulou and Sofia Batskini for their assistance in data collection. Finally, we are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for providing useful suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix I
Appendix I
Familiar objects | Unfamiliar objects | |||||||||||
Questions | Duck | Scissors | Rock | Booby | Nutcracker | Stalagmite | ||||||
1st question | ||||||||||||
“Have you seen this before?” | ||||||||||||
2nd question | ||||||||||||
“Do you know what this is?” | ||||||||||||
3rd question | ||||||||||||
“Is it alive or not?” | ||||||||||||
“Give some examples of alive and non-alive entities.” 1* | ||||||||||||
4th question | ||||||||||||
“Why does it have this particular feature?” 2* | Feet color | Feet shape | Color | Shape | Color | Shape | Feet color | Feet shape | Color | Shape | Color | Shape |
5th question | ||||||||||||
“Is this feature useful for something?” 2* | Feet color | Feet shape | Color | Shape | Color | Shape | Feet color | Feet shape | Color | Shape | Color | Shape |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kampourakis, K., Pavlidi, V., Papadopoulou, M. et al. Children’s Teleological Intuitions: What Kind of Explanations Do 7–8 Year Olds Give for the Features of Organisms, Artifacts and Natural Objects?. Res Sci Educ 42, 651–671 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9219-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9219-4