On the Complex Relation Between Cognitive Developmental Research and Children’s Science Curricula

Abstract

My earlier article (Metz, 1995 ) identified several assumptions about elementary school children’s scientific reasoning abilities that have frequently been used for the purpose of framing “developmental appropriate” science curricula. That article traced the origin of those assumptions to an interpretation of a segment of Piaget’s writings and then critiqued those assumptions of the basis of Piaget’s corpus, as well as the contemporary cognitive developmental research literature. Given that developmental research constituted the primary base on which I critiqued these assumptions and formulated alternative recommendations, lam surprised by Deanna Kuhn’s ( 1997 ) contention that the article could be read as suggesting that the developmental literature has “failed” science educators and that they would be advised to look elsewhere to inform their curricular design. Nevertheless, I do consider the relation between cognitive developmental research, as embodied in the contemporary research tradition, and children’s science curricula as fundamentally complex. This essay examines three interrelated characteristics of the cognitive developmental research tradition that contribute to the complexity of this relationship: (a) its tendency to attribute shortcomings in performance to the child’s stage, with the assumption that these shortcomings will disappear with sufficient advancement of cognitive development; (b) the frequent confounding of weak knowledge with developmentally based cognitive deficiencies; and (c) the emphasis of robust stage-based constraints on children’s thinking, to the neglect of variability and change.

Learning to Understand the Forms of Causality Implicit in Scientifically Accepted Explanations

“…The relationship between developmental research and children's science learning is complex (e.g., Metz, 1995Metz, , 1997 and lends no easy prescription to answer educational questions. Much of the developmental research investigates what children can do in contexts in which they are novices and while studies have become increasingly clever in their design such that they offer insight into the competencies of very young children, they do little to suggest what is possible with optimal educational support.…”

Narrative and Paradigmatic Explanations in Preschool Science Discourse

“…An underlying assumption of this study is that young children are capable of developing increasingly abstract, generalized understandings of concepts with which they have sufficient experiential knowledge (Brown & Campione, 1994;Metz, 1997). When it is meaningfully tied to children's prior experiences, exposure to paradigmatic language can promote children's development of abstract scientific concepts (Gelman & Brenneman, 2004;Vygotsky, 1986).…”

“…There is strong evidence that effective science instruction integrates the narrative and paradigmatic modes, building from the experiential to the more abstract (Brown & Campione, 1994;Gelman & Brenneman, 2004;Metz, 1997). Inquiry approaches to science education encourage teachers to incorporate children's primary discourses in science lessons to support their concept development, as well as ease their transition into scientific forms of discourse (Pappas et al, 2003).…”

“…Preschool teachers rarely ask children questions to elicit extended answers such as explanations (Makin & Jones Diaz, 2002). One reason for this may be that psychological research has tended to minimize young children's capacity for abstract and theoretical thinking, leading early educators to avoid complex thinking rather than to strengthen it (Metz, 1997).…”

“…Teachers may avoid talking about science in paradigmatic terms with young children, believing that they are incapable of scientific thinking involving any abstract concepts or theoretical coherence. Only recently has contemporary theory and research suggested that preschoolers can begin to develop abstract concepts about topics with which they have sufficient knowledge and experience (Brown & Campione, 1994;Metz, 1997), and that adults can promote children's development of abstract understandings by introducing the relevant language for these concepts (Gelman & Brenneman, 2004).…”