The Magic of Mechanism: Explanation-Based Instruction on Counterintuitive Concepts in Early Childhood

Abstract

Common-sense intuitions can be useful guides in everyday life and problem solving. However, they can also impede formal science learning and provide the basis for robust scientific misconceptions. Addressing such misconceptions has generally been viewed as the province of secondary schooling. However, in this article, I argue that for a set of foundational but highly counterintuitive ideas (e.g., evolution by natural selection), coherent causal-explanatory instruction—instruction that emphasizes the multifaceted mechanisms underpinning natural phenomena—should be initiated much sooner, in early elementary school. This proposal is motivated by various findings from research in the cognitive, developmental, and learning sciences. For example, it has been shown that explanatory biases that render students susceptible to intuitively based scientific misconceptions emerge early in development. Furthermore, findings also reveal that once developed, such misconceptions are not revised and replaced by subsequently learned scientific theories but competitively coexist alongside them. Taken together, this research, along with studies revealing the viability of early coherent explanation-based instruction on counterintuitive theories, have significant implications for the timing, structure, and scope of early science education.

The Role of Alternative Theories and Anomalous Evidence in Children’s Scientific Belief Revision

“…In contrast, in the Explanation-first condition, when children were exposed to rich conceptual explanations about what makes objects sink and float, children were more likely to rely on this information to make new predictions and justifications. This gives corroborating evidence that children can learn scientific information from picture books (Ganea et al, 2011;Kelemen, 2019;Kelemen et al, 2014;Strouse & Ganea, 2016;Venkadasalam & Ganea, 2018) and can apply this knowledge to reason and interpret new phenomena.…”

“…The implication of these findings is that early intervention is critical, because it allows children to develop robust scientifically accurate concepts that in time can outcompete naïve misconceptions (Kelemen, 2019).…”

How Do Young Children Explain Differences in the Classroom? Implications for Achievement, Motivation, and Educational Equity

“…Although some "why" questions are verbalized, many are not-that is, explanations are often produced when people simply wonder to themselves why particular events or outcomes occurred as they did (e.g., in our opening example, Marie and Paul might wonder to themselves why Alice knew the new letter). In addition, most of the explanations that children (and adults) generate in everyday life are not detailed, such as those of scientists, but rather quick and simple (e.g., Keil, 2003;Kelemen, 2019). It is unlikely that children-or anyone, for that matterwould be able to generate complete answers to questions about why the differences they observe in the classroom occur.…”

Prompting Children’s Belief Revision About Balance Through Primary and Secondary Sources of Evidence

“…This is true only for objects with an evenly distributed mass and represents a partial understanding of balance principles. Revising prior beliefs can be difficult because naive theories are built on the basis of first-hand observations and can also be driven by cognitive biases ( Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder, 1974 ; Shtulman, 2017 ; Kelemen, 2019 ). Also, just like adults, children easily interpret events that support a theory, but treat counterevidence (i.e., anomalies) as exemptions and isolated cases from their current theory ( Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder, 1974 ; Chinn and Brewer, 1993 ).…”