Sci-VT: Developing Measures of Children’s Science Vocabulary

• In Event: Poster Session 03
  In Poster Session: PS 03 Topic - Language, Communication

Abstract

Acquiring and using science vocabulary is an important component of science learning. Indeed, children benefit from being trained to use science vocabulary in classroom conversation to clearly communicate their explanations of topics (Wright & Gotwals, 2017). Furthermore, research suggests that children’s productive science vocabulary predicts their science knowledge above general receptive vocabulary and demographic variables (Lazaroff & Vlach, 2019). However, research has yet to develop standardized measures of children’s science vocabulary. The current study took a first step toward developing a receptive and productive measure of children’s science vocabulary, and compared children’s performance on the receptive measure to parental report on the productive measure.

One sample of children (N = 42, 19 males, Mage = 55.6 months) were tested on whether they understand science words across six categories: Weather/Space, Experimental, Physics, Animal/Life Science, Environmental Science, and Size/Physical Properties words. To test children’s receptive vocabulary of science words, we developed a paradigm similar to the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) (Figure 1). To test children’s productive science vocabulary, parents of a separate sample of children ages 3-8 (N = 59, 42 males, Mage = 71.4 months) completed a Science Vocabulary Checklist, developed by the researchers, where they reported the science words they had heard their child say out loud. This checklist included the same words in the receptive vocabulary test.

Results revealed that children had the highest receptive knowledge of Weather/Space words (M = 67.17% of words in this category, SD = .22) and knew far fewer Experimental words in comparison (M = 51.25%, SD = .17). These proportions aligned closely with children’s productive vocabulary: children produced the greatest proportion of Weather/Space words (M = 86.44%, SD = .25) and the smallest proportion of Experimental words (M = 67.73%, SD = .26). Examples of individual words are provided in Table 1. However, children’s productive science vocabulary was larger than children’s receptive science vocabulary. This discrepancy could be due to children having a lack of experience with visual representations of science words integral to receptive vocabulary, such as through performing experiments. Moreover, children may be producing science words without understanding their meaning. Alternatively, parents may overestimate the size of their children’s science vocabulary.

Taken together, these findings shed light on how children’s science receptive and productive vocabularies align. Specifically, they suggest striking similarities between which science words children strongly comprehend and frequently use, as well as which words children may need additional support to learn. The current work also highlights challenges for moving forward with measurement development; researchers will need to address why we may see differences between receptive and productive measures, and between direct behavioral testing with children and parental report.

Authors

• Emma Lazaroff, University of Wisconsin - Madison
  Presenting Author

• Haley A Vlach, University of Wisconsin - Madison
  Non-Presenting Author