Poster #26 - Conceptual Expertise in Child Development

• In Event: 2-163 - Poster Session 08
  In Poster Session: PS 08 Section - Cognitive Processes

Integrative Statement

Child Development programs in higher education aim not just to increase knowledge, but to help students think about the subject matter such that they see patterns in what they learn about development. Child Development students struggle with this (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2008).

Replicating a technique used in physics (Chi, 1981) and biology (Smith et al, 2013), a card-sorting task was created to assess conceptual expertise in Child Development. Each card refers both to a developmental stage (a conceptually shallow dimension) and to a developmental theory (a conceptually deep dimension). Another indicator of deep learning and critical thinking is the ability to recognize the quality of evidence and judge the accuracy of claims about child development in the general public. Replicating a technique used in the critical thinking literature (e.g., Lobato, Mendoza, Sims, & Chin, 2014), students were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with a list of dubious claims about child development (e.g., vaccines cause autism, sugar makes kids hyper.)

Students (n=127) at a public university completed the card-sorting task and self-reported their beliefs. Novice students (n=72) in an introductory child development course were most likely to use shallow (developmental stage) categories and unanticipated categories, whereas advanced students (n=55) in a capstone class graduating with a degree in child development were most likely to use deep (theoretical) categories to organize information. The use of unanticipated categories was the best predictor of the student's status.

Novice students reported believing 4.5 epistemically unwarranted beliefs related to child development, while advanced students reported believing about 2.2 of them. For example, virtually all of the novice students (90%) believe that sugar makes kids hyper, and 56% of the advanced students agree. Another example: 41% of novice students believe that divorce usually causes irreparable damage to children, while 12% of the advanced students agree.

The use of unanticipated categories was positively correlated with epistemically unwarranted beliefs (r=.41, p<.0001), and negatively correlated with indicators of academic performance. For instance, scores on a department-wide objective comprehensive exam were negatively correlated (r=-.46, p<.0001) with the use of unanticipated categories. Comprehensive exam scores were also negatively correlated (r=0.39, p<.006) with endorsement of epistemically unwarranted beliefs.

These findings suggest that the card-sorting activity and self-reported epistemically unwarranted beliefs may serve as markers for deep learning and critical thinking in the context of higher education related to child development.

Author

• Kathleen D Dyer, California State University, Fresno
  Presenting Author