The Role of Explanations and Guided Play in Young Children’s Revision of Physical Science Misconceptions

• In Event: 2-030 - Explanation and Exploration in Children’s Intuitive and Scientific Theories

Integrative Statement

Science misconceptions are common among children and if not addressed can persist into adulthood (Pine, Messer, & St. John, 2001). In two studies we examine whether conceptually-rich explanations provided in hands-on activities and picture books help children revise physical misconceptions.

One prevalent misconception is that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects (Hast, 2014). Study 1 explored whether the use of explanations along with hands-on activities leads to knowledge revision. We designed 2 activities with 3 examples of heavy and light objects falling at the same rate. During pre- and post-test, children were asked whether different object pairs fall at the same rate, irrespective of weight. Children (N=240) age 4 and 5 were assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: guided-play activity and explanation of gravity (Explanation condition), guided-play activity (No-explanation condition), and a free play condition. There were 40 children in each condition for each age, and an equal distribution of gender. Explanations were provided by the experimenter.

A Generalized Estimating Equations analysis found no main effect of test phase or condition (ps>.47). However, there was a significant interaction between test phase and the Explanation (p<.001) and No-explanation (p <.001) conditions. At post-test, compared to control group, children in the Explanation condition were 12.99 times more likely to answer correctly and children in the No-explanation condition were 6.31 times more likely to answer correctly (Figure 1). These results highlight the importance of guided play in children’s belief revision. Although non-significant, there was a trend for children to perform better in the Explanation than in the No-explanation condition (p=.10). In a follow up study, we ask children to explain their predictions during the test phase and during a delay test 1-week later. We predict that children in the Explanation condition will have better justifications and rates of retention than the children in the No-explanation condition.

In a second study, we are currently examining whether the method of delivery (guided play vs. picture books) impacts learning and children’s self-explanations. This study uses the concept of balance. Children younger than age 7 do not know how to balance objects with different weight (Bonawitz, van Schijndel, Friel, & Schulz, 2012). We designed 2 picture books and 2 guided-play activities that had 1 example of same weight objects balancing and 3 examples of heavy and light objects balancing. The pre- and post-test had 2 same-weight pairs and 2 different-weight pairs. Five-year-olds were asked to predict where these object pairs would balance on a beam and to explain their prediction. At each test phase, explanations were coded on a 2-point scale, for a total of 8.

Data collection is ongoing (N=29). A 2 (test phase) x 2 (condition) mixed ANOVA revealed a main effect of test phase (p<.001); scores increased from pre- (M=2.99, SD=1.99) to post-test (M=6.50, SD=2.31). There was no main effect of condition (p=.87) or interaction between test phase and condition (p=.21). These findings suggest that both picture books and guided-activities are effective in promoting children’s use of conceptually-rich explanations to learn science concepts.

Authors

• Vaunam P. Venkadasalam, University of Toronto
  Presenting Author

• Nicole E. Larsen, University of Toronto
  Non-Presenting Author

• Patricia Ganea, University of Toronto
  Non-Presenting Author