The Unique and Selective Effects of Explanation and Exploration on Learning in Early Childhood

• In Event: Different Perspectives on the Role of Explanation and Exploration in Learning

Abstract

Theoretical perspective. A growing literature supports the idea that explanations and exploratory behavior are far from haphazard, and in fact play a crucial role in learning (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989; Chi, DeLeeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994; Legare, 2012; Lombrozo, 2006, 2012; Rittle-Johnson, Saylor, & Swygert, 2007; Singer, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2006; Roy & Chi, 2005; Wellman & Liu, 2007; Williams & Lombrozo, 2010). Yet despite this evidence, the mechanisms underlying the learning benefits of explanation and exploration are largely underspecified. We propose that examining the way that children learn from self-explanation (Siegler, 2002) and exploration (Bonawitz, Shafto, Gweon, Goodman, Spelke, & Schulz, 2011) has the potential to improve instructional practices (Kuhn, 2010) by providing insight into how to harness these learning benefits for educational gains.

Objective. The objective of our studies was to examine how and why explanation and exploration influence learning in young children, with a focus on characterizing the unique and selective effects of each process. In particular, how does explaining differ from the spontaneous processing of information that occurs during observation, and from other processes that require constructive engagement, such as exploration or non-explanatory verbalization? Does exploration provide unique leverage in learning about a causal system? And to what extent do explanation and exploration result in “all-purpose” benefits for learning as opposed to highly selective benefits, or even potential costs?

Research evidence. To explore these questions, we presented preschool-aged children with a novel mechanical toy involving visible interlocking gears and examined learning using a variety of measures. Dependent measures included the extent to which children (a) understood the machine’s functional-mechanical relationships, (b) remembered perceptual features of the machine, and (c) successfully reconstructed the machine. Children were prompted to observe, to explain, to explore, or to both explain and explore, and learning was assessed as a function of this experimental manipulation. The data suggest that the benefits of explanation are unique, in that they differ from the consequences of either observation (in the observe condition) or exploration, and are selective in focusing learners on causal, functional-mechanical understanding. It is noteworthy that prompting children to explain fostered learning that differed significantly from prompting children to observe, where children were free to spontaneously explain.

Significance. In sum, the results provide support for the proposal that explanation and exploration have unique and selective effects, with explanation especially useful for learning about causal mechanisms and supporting generalization. Our data have implications for ways to harness explanation and exploration to improve educational instruction through strategic pedagogical implementation. For example, our data provide evidence that explanation and exploration are associated with both overlapping and complementary learning benefits (i.e., explanation elucidates causal mechanisms and promotes generalization whereas exploration generates new evidence), and that they may work in tandem to promote hypothesis-generation and hypothesis-testing. Our findings provide insight into how to harness the potential of explanation and exploration for more effective early science education.

Authors

• Cristine H Legare, The University of Texas Austin

• Tania Lombrozo, University of California - Berkeley