18 objects were used, 9 which floated and 9 which sank, detailed descriptions of these objects can be found in Appendix 1a and b. To trial which objects floated and which sank a container full of water was used which was sufficiently adequate in size to place objects in and out of. In part C of the interview a set of children’s scales was required as well as two rectangular tins. The two tin were made of the same material and were the same shape but one was bigger in size than the other. Inside the tins were an equal amount of lentils. The only other apparatus used was recording equipment to record the interviews.
Participants were interviewed individually by Professor Nunes; also present in the interview room (a school classroom) was a classroom assistant, the film producer, two camera operators, a sound recordist and a member of the course team. The location was familiar to the younger participant but not to the older one. Given the large number of people present in the room, the interviewer commenced by establishing a very relaxed atmosphere with the participants in order to try and avoid any power imbalance, the right to withdraw at any time was also reminded to the participants for ethical reasons (BPS).
As shown in Appendix 1 the objects were divided into four categories; light floaters, heavy sinkers, light sinkers and heavy floaters. This enabled the interviewer to go through them in a systematic order.
The interviews were broken down into three parts:
Part A: assessing the participant’s initial understanding with light objects that float and heavy objects which sink
Part B: assessing the participant’s initial understanding with light objects that sink and heavy objects which float
Part C: developing children’s understanding
In order to thoroughly cover the three parts an interview protocol was designed which can be found in Appendix 2.
After the stages 1-9 of the protocol had been carried out the participants were debriefed (BPS).
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Results
As all the responses were coded using the coding scheme shown in figure 1, the most appropriate measure to describe them was as a percentage. This was achieved through applying the following formula: Frequency total / overall frequency total x 100. The raw data for this section can be found in Appendix 1a and b
Table 1
Frequencies of main causal themes identified in Jessica’s (age 12)
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Table 2
Frequencies of main causal themes identified in Daniel’s (age 7)
As shown in table 1 and 2, Jessica used 11 different causal themes in her initial explanations placing weight (28%) as the most frequent cause for objects to sink and float. Daniel used only 5 themes but like Jessica explained floating and sinking mainly in terms of weight (40%).
For their later explanations both followed a similar pattern in that they both decreased the number of causal themes they used to explain floating and sinking.
Jessica showed a 55% decrease going from using 11 themes to 6 and Daniel moved from using 5 to 4 themes indicating a 40% decrease.
Whilst both the children’s data show that here has been a shift in the belief of what is the main causal theme for objects to sink and float, unlike their similar initial explanations, Jessica now puts equal importance to 5 main causal themes whilst Daniel has shifted from weight to shape (54%).
Figure 1 and 2 serve as a visual representation for table 1 and 2.
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Figure 1
Figure 2
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Figure 3
Figure 4
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Table 3
Table 4
Summary of the objects which caused false predictions.
As shown in table 3 both children gave an equal number of correct answers suggesting that age was not a major factor. Table 4 demonstrates that 60% of the children’s errors were on the same objects. A possible explanation for this would be the unusual features of the items which may of caused confusion.
Tables 5 and 6 below show a summary of the participants attempt to give a single reason why objects float and sink.
The raw data for this can be found in Appendix 3.
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Table 5
Jessica’s attempt to summarise why objects float and sink in parts A, B and C of the investigation
Table 6
Daniel’s attempt to summarise why objects float and sink in parts A, B and C of the investigation
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Table 5 indicates that Jessica shows no pattern of consistency in her reasoning for floating and sinking but throughout the investigation displays a clear process of conceptual change. Daniel (table 6) however, could be seen as tempting to apply a generalised theory through out the three parts by consistently using weight and shape as the main causal themes, these two main causal themes appear dominant throughout the interview.
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Discussion
The two opposing theories by Piaget and Vygotsky which initiated this investigation were given support by the data collected in this investigation.
The results from this investigation indicated that the older participant was able to develop her understanding further with adult guidance to eventually achieve a better understanding of why things float and sink thus supporting the original prediction for this investigation. The younger participant however did not seem to benefit from the scaffolding and despite conflicting evidence to his understanding choose to sustain his own theory on why objects float and sink this concurs with Piaget’s theory.
Both children seem to have a good working knowledge about objects which float and sink.
Aspects of both Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theory came to light through this investigation.
Jessica seemed to have reached Piaget’s formal operation stage where by she was able to think in an abstract way about the scientific concept under investigation. She also displayed conceptual change as a result from conflicting evidence as Howe et al. (1992) suggested, this was demonstrated by inconsistency of explanations of why all objects float and sink. Jessica did not seem to have a single theory through out the investigation but rather adapted her explanations when faced with conflicting evidence. Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD was well demonstrated in Part C of the interview with Jessica. With the aid of scaffolding Jessica was able to accomplish an understanding which alone she would not have.
Daniel (age 7) also concurred with Piaget’s theory in that he seemed unable to think in an abstract way perhaps as a result of not having reached the formal operation stage.
As Piaget suggested Daniel rejected conflicting evidence in favour of his own theory that objects float because they are light and shaped like a boat, he maintained this theory through out the investigation showing no achievement of conceptual change. Daniel’s data also showed a failure in his ability to extend his scientific knowledge through working his ZPD. Learning as appropriation and collaborative learning was displayed showing support for Vygotsky and Howe’s theory however discovery learning as Piaget suggested seemed ineffective.
Another way of interpreting this data would be through using Nicholas Shelley’s interpretation of how children come to achieve an understanding of why things float and sink. Jessica displayed a gradual understanding that things float if they contain air (Hypothesis 1) through to Shelley’s hypothesis 3 that “things float if their density is less than the density of the fluid” (Assignment booklet). Daniel however had not yet developed the ability to think in an abstract way and therefore was restricted in his own theory through out the investigation.
The results produced from this investigation adequately answer the research question.
Daniel’s understanding seems to stem mostly from his own experience with the beginnings of some scientific concepts he has started to learn at school and Jessica’s
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
understanding seems to take on an abstract form which she has developed from her own experience and what she has learnt at school.
The interview technique employed in this investigation was carried out well as the interviewer adapted well to the participants verbal and cognitive ability.
Despite this investigation successfully answering the original research question there were some downfalls in its procedure. It may be argued that in both interviews there was a power imbalance between the interviewer and the participants. Professor Nunes used a lot of leading questions which seemed to have influenced the participants into agreeing with what was being said despite perhaps not fully understanding. This may have affected the reliability of the investigation.
Another limitation was the scale of the investigation. Having only two participants cannot give a broad view of children’s understanding of scientific concepts.
The coding methods were a good measure of reliability as they were not limited.
This investigation could be extended in several ways. For example, rather than drawing out theories from the research, an investigation could be carried out in set conditions where only one theory is applied like it was in Part C of this investigation which was designated to explore Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD. By measuring the children’s success the theories could then be valuated in how well they work individually. Another avenue that could be investigated is differences in male and females.
With the backing of a large scale investigation the findings could be extended into schools and the way children are taught scientific concepts.
Conclusion
The results from this investigation showed the older participant was able to give a better understanding of why objects float and sink than the younger participant. Jessica offered explanations which required abstract thinking and displayed conceptual change when faced with contradictory evidence, further she was able to progress her understanding to a higher level with the help from an adult. Daniel rejected contradictory evidence and showed little progress with the scaffolding exercise.
On the basis of these results it was concluded that both theories offered by Vygotsky and Piaget were valuable in understanding how children come to master scientific concepts.
Wordcount 1994
Appendix 1 a Mia Lherpiniere, X7374356, TMA06
Jessica Age:12
Appendix 1b Mia Lherpiniere, X7374356, TMA06
Daniel Age: 7
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Appendix 2
Interview Protocol
Part A: assessing the participant’s initial understanding with light objects that float and heavy objects that sink
Stage 1: examining the objects. The child is presented with eight objects.
Stage 2: predicting what will happen and why. The child is asked to make a prediction about whether the object will float or sink. Professor Nunes also asks them why they think the object will float or sink.
Stage 3: testing the predictions. One by one the objects are placed in a tank of water and the child is asked to comment on what happens.
Part B: assessing the participant’s initial understanding with light objects that sink and heavy objects that float
Stage 4: examining the objects. The child is presented with ten objects.
Stage 5: predicting what will happen and why. The child is asked to make a prediction about whether the object will float or sink. Professor Nunes also asks them why they think the object will float or sink.
Stage 6: testing the predictions. One by one the objects are placed in a tank of water and the child is asked to comment on what happens. It is likely that some of the children’s predictions here will not be confirmed. Professor Nunes asks them this result and may begin a “Stage 7” type discussion for an object (see below).
Part C: developing children’s understanding
Stage 7: a Piagetian approach – inducing cognitive conflict. Professor Nunes draws to the child’s attention examples where their explanations are inconsistent and demonstrate an incomplete understanding. For example a child who states that “heavy things sink” may be asked to consider the heavy wood block, that floats, and the light needle that sinks. This stage finishes with the child identifying the objects that floated and being asked to explain why all the items in that group floated. This is repeated for the objects that sink.
Stage 8: scaffolding children’s thinking. Scales are used in an attempt to help the child to take account of both size and weight, and to develop a more adequate (albeit incomplete) explanatory concept.
Stage 9: re-assessing the child’s understanding. Finally the child is asked to explain why the objects that float and sink behave as they do.
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Appendix 3.
Daniel Age: 7
Jessica Age:12
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
References
Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (1994), cited in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) p.19, 292.
Howe, C., Tolmie, A. and Anderson, A. (1991) cited in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) p.293
Howe, C., Tolmie, A. and Anderson, A. (1992) cited in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) p.293
Inhelder, B and Piaget, J. (1958), cited in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) p. 288-289.
Media Kit Part 3, Video Band 9: Floating and sinking: Demonstartion A and D, The Open University 2006.
Methods and Skills Handbook (2006), The Open University
Newman, D., Griffin, P., and Cole, M. (1989), cited in Oates, J., and Grayson, A. (2006) p.294.
Nunes, T. and Bryant, P. (2006) “Mathematical and scientific thinking” in Oates, J., and Grayson, A. (eds) Cognitive and Language Development in Children, Oxford Blackwell/ The Open University.
Nussbaum, J. and Novack, J. D. (1976) cited in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) p.264
Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) “Introduction: perspectives on cognitive and language development” in Oates, J., and Grayson, A. (eds) Cognitive and Language Development in Children, Oxford Blackwell/ The Open University
Oates, J. Sheehy, K. and Wood, C. (2005) “Theories of development” in Oates, J., Wood, C. and Grayson, A. (eds) Psychological Development and Early Childhood, Oxford Blackwell/ The Open University.
The British Psychological Society / The Open University
The Study Guide 3 (2006) Open University.
Shelley, N. (2006) “Appendix 3: Why do things float?” in Assignment Booklet (2006), The Open University.
Wood, D. (1988), cited in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) p.19
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) cited in Oates, J. and Grayson, A. (2006) p.294-295.
Mia Lherpiniere
X7374356
TMA06
Woodhead, M. (2005) “Children and development”