“…Piaget () concluded that children's understandings of succession of events and different durations of time did not develop until his concrete operations stage at age 7–11, but other researchers found that even preschoolers can understand durations of time when not distracted by interfering cues (Levin, ). Research investigating children's understanding of both historical and geologic time shows that children develop their concept of time over a long period of development, by understanding relative time long before understanding absolute time (Barton & Levstik, ; Dodick & Orion, ; Thornton & Vukelich, ).…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a study of children's understanding of historical time, Barton and Levstik () found that children aged 5–8 are able to distinguish between historical events that happened long ago and more recently. In fact, some kindergarteners and all second graders differentiated between the relative timing of different events, even beyond “old” and “recent” categories.…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to relative time, absolute time is much less accessible to children. Children aged 5–8 rarely use dates when discussing pictures showing the historical past and generally guessed when asked to produce such dates (Barton & Levstik, ). By fourth grade (age 9), children were much better at determining dates of pictured events (Barton & Levstik, ).…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Children aged 5–8 rarely use dates when discussing pictures showing the historical past and generally guessed when asked to produce such dates (Barton & Levstik, ). By fourth grade (age 9), children were much better at determining dates of pictured events (Barton & Levstik, ). Consequently, Thornton and Vukelich () recommend that history instruction not include dates before age 9.…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Young children seem to have a sense that living things have a past and future, even as they are not always understanding the concept of irreversibility and death (Labrell & Stefaniak, ). Absolute ages of fossils are difficult for young children to understand (Barton & Levstik, ; Thornton & Vukelich, ; Trend, ), and their estimates of absolute ages are often guesses given their limited understandings of large numbers.…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
Many standards documents and learning progressions recommend evolution learning in elementary grades. Given young children's interest in dinosaurs and other fossils, fossil investigations can provide a rich entry into evolutionary biology for young learners. Educational psychology literature has addressed children's reasoning about foundational concepts related to fossils such as living/nonliving distinctions, causation, origins of objects, and conceptions of time. This exploratory qualitative case study explored preschool children's ideas about fossils and these foundational concepts as children moved through a 1-week science camp devoted to fossils. Research participants consisted of 15 preschool children aged 3-6 enrolled in a university-affiliated summer camp. Data sources included daily assessments and postcamp individual interviews. Data analysis yielded several main findings. Children weresuccessful at determining where fossils could be found, identifying familiar fossils and fossil tracks, ascertaining that familiar and unfamiliar fossils were nonliving, and determining that rocks have natural origins. Children struggled more often at understanding how fossils differ from recent bones and skulls, properties uniting fossils, and the natural origins of plants and unfamiliar fossils. We also noted clear age-and object-related trends for living/nonliving distinctions, teleological reasoning, origins, and object ages. Implications for future research and practice are offered.
“…Piaget () concluded that children's understandings of succession of events and different durations of time did not develop until his concrete operations stage at age 7–11, but other researchers found that even preschoolers can understand durations of time when not distracted by interfering cues (Levin, ). Research investigating children's understanding of both historical and geologic time shows that children develop their concept of time over a long period of development, by understanding relative time long before understanding absolute time (Barton & Levstik, ; Dodick & Orion, ; Thornton & Vukelich, ).…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a study of children's understanding of historical time, Barton and Levstik () found that children aged 5–8 are able to distinguish between historical events that happened long ago and more recently. In fact, some kindergarteners and all second graders differentiated between the relative timing of different events, even beyond “old” and “recent” categories.…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared to relative time, absolute time is much less accessible to children. Children aged 5–8 rarely use dates when discussing pictures showing the historical past and generally guessed when asked to produce such dates (Barton & Levstik, ). By fourth grade (age 9), children were much better at determining dates of pictured events (Barton & Levstik, ).…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Children aged 5–8 rarely use dates when discussing pictures showing the historical past and generally guessed when asked to produce such dates (Barton & Levstik, ). By fourth grade (age 9), children were much better at determining dates of pictured events (Barton & Levstik, ). Consequently, Thornton and Vukelich () recommend that history instruction not include dates before age 9.…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Young children seem to have a sense that living things have a past and future, even as they are not always understanding the concept of irreversibility and death (Labrell & Stefaniak, ). Absolute ages of fossils are difficult for young children to understand (Barton & Levstik, ; Thornton & Vukelich, ; Trend, ), and their estimates of absolute ages are often guesses given their limited understandings of large numbers.…”
Section: Children's Reasoning About Foundational Concepts Related To mentioning
Many standards documents and learning progressions recommend evolution learning in elementary grades. Given young children's interest in dinosaurs and other fossils, fossil investigations can provide a rich entry into evolutionary biology for young learners. Educational psychology literature has addressed children's reasoning about foundational concepts related to fossils such as living/nonliving distinctions, causation, origins of objects, and conceptions of time. This exploratory qualitative case study explored preschool children's ideas about fossils and these foundational concepts as children moved through a 1-week science camp devoted to fossils. Research participants consisted of 15 preschool children aged 3-6 enrolled in a university-affiliated summer camp. Data sources included daily assessments and postcamp individual interviews. Data analysis yielded several main findings. Children weresuccessful at determining where fossils could be found, identifying familiar fossils and fossil tracks, ascertaining that familiar and unfamiliar fossils were nonliving, and determining that rocks have natural origins. Children struggled more often at understanding how fossils differ from recent bones and skulls, properties uniting fossils, and the natural origins of plants and unfamiliar fossils. We also noted clear age-and object-related trends for living/nonliving distinctions, teleological reasoning, origins, and object ages. Implications for future research and practice are offered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.