Children at eleven years old may acknowledge the boat effect though they may not really understand the fact of it. Introduction: Sinking and Floating Is a scientific concept. Objects float or sink depending on the material they are made of-?whether they are heavy or light for their size’. Air trapped Inside objects reduces their effective density. This is also the case with boat-shaped objects. In the interview Jessica the older girl predicted Wright almost half of the objects at the question does it float or sink, while Emily, the younger girl predicted Wright Just twenty two per cent of the questions.
The scientific understanding changes with age. This suggests that children do change their conceptual. Did Asses, Reins and Clement talked about problems In understanding scientific concepts. In the light of did Asses this practical report will look at the problems that Jessica and Emily have in their scientifically thinking. It will be consider Pigged and Vigorous theories in researching the cognitive development Bosky states that scientific concepts are learnt by going from the general to particular, but in everyday life people generalize from Individual observations.
He also emphasized the role of the dull as teacher in helping and supporting the child to achieve a higher level of understanding than they would be capable of alone (Book 3, p. 294) One of the teaching methods for children for sinking and floating could be practical experiences, which will help the children to become familiar with the scientific terms and it would be useful If children can Interact. Methods Design These two interviews are a replication of Pigged, but there are different teaching methods used. Participants Keynes.
One of the girls is Jessica, aged 11 years and 10 months and the other is Emily aged 6 years and 7 months. Materials The materials used were: a tank of water and different objects for exploring floating and sinking, a scale to measure the weight of some objects and a camera to record the interviews. Procedure A primary school from Milton Keynes was approached to identify children who are willing to be recorded, taking part in a practical investigation of objects that float and sink. After a number of children agreed to take part of the practical study, their parents were asked to sign a form giving consent to their.
The participants were told that they could ask for the recording to be stopped, paused or leave the recording at NY time. By asking the parents to sigh the form and telling the children that they can stop the recording any time the Code of Human Research Ethics – British Psychological Society was respected in this practical study. The interviews took place in 2012 and the children were recorded in their schools during a school day. The researcher was Natalie Curricular, an Open University doctoral student. Natalie had a definite protocol divided in nine stages in exploring how children approach floating and sinking concept.
In the first stage there are presented 8 objects: Appendix 3, light objects that float and heavy objects that sink. In the second stage the child is asked to feel the objects and predict whether each object floats or sink and why. In the third stage the objects are placed in the tank one by one and the child is asked why it happens that way. The fourth stage brings another ten objects Appendix 2 ready for exploring. In the fifth stage the child is asked again to predict whether each object floats or sink and why.
In the sixth stage, same as the third one, the objects are introduced in the tank of water one by one and the child is asked to comment on what happens. Stage seven introduces a Paginating approach – cognitive conflict. After exploring all the objects, Natalie tries to bring to the child’s attention their explanations which are contradictory or inconsistent. For example, heavy thinks sink and light things float. In the eighth stage the scaffolding children’s thinking is tried out. In the same time a scale is introduced to help the child to take account of the concept of weight and size.
And in the last stage the child is asked again to explain why do things float and sink. Results: The results of Jessica and Emily predictions are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. The detailed coding of the girl’s predictions is provided in the Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 Table 1 Jessica initial predictions (1 1 years old) Name Correct predictions Wrong predictions “I don’t know’ predictions 8 7 3 44. 4% 38. 88% 16. 66% Percentages (column total / overall total x 100 Table 2 Emily initial predictions (6 years old) Emily 4 14 22. 22% 77. 7% 0% Percentages As it could be seen from the tables the report showed that the eleven years old Jessica got more correct prediction than the 6 years old Emily. Also some of Jessica predictions were “l don’t know’, while Emily didn’t choose this option. Most of the explanations that the girls used are based on the weight and material of the objects, these being the second Hypothesis of Sells framework which says that “things float if they are light for their size”. In the same time some of Jessica explanations seem not to have any common sense.
For example: “the pencil isn’t waterproof so it will sink”, and “the yogurt floats because has a lid on top and keeps it dry’. These two answers sustain the constructivism when Pigged said that a “young child is unable to comprehend points of view different from his or her own” (Book 3, p. 15). Discussion: The results of this report indicate that child’ understanding about floating and ‘cognitive conflict’. The results indicate that Jessica got eight correct predictions, seven wrong predictions and 3 “l don’t know predictions and Emily got four correct predictions and fourteen wrong predictions.
The younger girl Jessica has none “l don’t know’ predictions though it could be seen from the interview that she didn’t know all the objects. When she saw the grapefruit she said “this piece of fruit… It’s like an orange”. And in her explanations she used a lot the word “this, or that”, instead of he object’s name. In the girls’ interview there is a lack of consistency between the answers. For example a “candle floats because it’s made of wax” and another candle which is also made of wax will sink because it’s heavy. In Jessica interview it could be seen that she has a bit a higher understanding about floating.
When she talks about the grapefruit, she describes it as a boat. Seller’s theory says “It is observed that when the boat is afloat, there is an air-filled space below the water level”, so although Jessica may not understand why, but she is using Hypothesis 1 here. Natalie in her seventh stage she introduces a cognitive conflict. For example when the girls said that light objects float and heavy objects sink, she would bring back in the discussion the light needle which sinks and the heavy candle which floats, and for this she also had a scale to weight the objects.
In Paginating theory this conflict is a “driving force for development” and for Whisky this situation “is an opportunity for the child to develop a new way of thinking and can create a zone of proximal development” (Book 3, p. 19). To understand many of the changes that are around us s necessary to develop a way of a scientifically thinking. One of the problems in understanding the scientific concepts is that children’s first ideas about the physical world are based on what they perceive in their everyday experiences with physical objects, as did Asses (1993) argued.
Natalie, the researcher tried to establish a nice relationship with the girls. She avoid using the words “right”, or “wrong”, which gave the girls courage to go on. But in the video it could be seen that Jessica was not so comfortable with her, being shy and when she would get a wrong prediction she looked in the room like expecting judgment. So for the future to get may a more accurate answer from the children would be a good idea for a teacher, that children are comfortable with, to do the whole interview.
The results from this project look like older children can understand better than young children the floating and sinking concept. O well it’s not possible to generalize these findings because there were interviewed only two girls. And there are no boys in the discussion. The external validity of these interviews is a concern. A development of this study, therefore, would be to extend the number of the children ND also will be interesting to bring some boys into the interviews and find out what do they think about floating and sinking.
If the same interviews would be done by other researchers I don’t think that the findings under the same circumstances would be the same. It’s true the school where the interviews were held is an environment where the girls were used to, but in the same time school requires a performance at a certain level. The interview was held in a library and there were some people in the background banging doors. The Conclusion: Children have their way of thinking about what is around them. They may give answers that for an adult may not make any sense.