Does Size Matter? Animal, Living and Non-Living Classification, Implications for Teaching
An empirical investigation of elementary school teacher candidates on classification activities dealing with animate and inanimate objects in terms of.
- Pub. date: August 15, 2021
- Pages: 465-472
- 230 Downloads
- 674 Views
- 0 Citations
An empirical investigation of elementary school teacher candidates on classification activities dealing with animate and inanimate objects in terms of being living or non-living demonstrates that as the size of the objects increases, subjects are more likely to classify them correctly as either being an animal or having living characteristics. Despite a variety of misconceptions having an impact on the results, size magnitude is shown to play a significant role on proper classification. The subjects’ performance on these activities at an advanced stage of their preparation suggests that their factual and procedural knowledge are deficient due to a lack of opportunities for conceptual development of the items tested. The identification of the role of size on the proper classification of objects in the activities bears significantly on the science curricular structure at the elementary school level. As the results of this study indicate, both pre-service elementary school teachers and by extension their prospective students need longer practice dealing with living and non-living classification activities, particularly in tasks where the microscopic features of matter can be investigated so that the proclivity to regard size as the defining characteristic is effectively addressed.
Keywords: Classification, misconceptions, science teaching.
References
Alanazi, F. H. (2019). Effect of IPAD use on Saudi children’s classification of and justifications regarding living things: A socio-cultural learning perspective. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(4), 490-506. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.490
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Oxford University Press.
Babai, R., Sekai, R., & Stavy, R. (2010). Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9174-2
Bonus, J. A. (2019). The impact of pictorial realism in educational science television on US children’s learning and transfer of biological facts. Journal of Children and Media, 13(4), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2019.1646295
Borgerding, L., & Raven, S. (2017). Children’s ideas about fossils and foundational concepts related to fossils. Science Education, 102(2), 414-439. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21331
Brannon, E. M. (2002). The development of ordinal numerical knowledge in infancy. Cognition, 83(3), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00005-7
Brumby, M. (1982). Students’ perceptions of the concept of life. Science Education, 66(4), 613-622. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660411
Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 777–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.777
Chyleńska, Z. A., & Rybska, E. (2018). Understanding students ideas about animal classification. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2145-2155. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/86612
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education. (1999). National Academy Press. https://bit.ly/3x30XuT
Elmesky, R. (2013). Building capacity in understanding foundational biology concepts: A k-12 learning progression in genetics informed by research on children’s thinking and learning. Research in Science Education, 43, 1155-1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9286-1
Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological Science, 13(2), 15-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00427
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young childrens’ naive thinking about the biological world. Psychology Press.
Keely, P., Eberle, F., & Dorsey, C. (2005). Uncovering student ideas in science: 23 formative assessment probes. NSTA Press.
Manfredo, M. J., Urquiza-Haas, E. G., Carlos, A. W. D., Bruskotter, J. T., & Dietsch, A. M. (2020). How anthropomorphism is changing the social context of modern wildlife conservation. Biology Conservation, 241, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108297
Marrs, K. A., Blake, R. E., & Gavrin, D. (2003). Web-based warm up exercises in just-in-time teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(1), 42-47.
Martin, D. J. (2009). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach (5th ed.). Wadsworth.
Monteiro, R., & Reis, G. (2020). Animals “я” us: Ergomorphism in/for science and environmental education. Society & Animals, 28(5-6), 592-612. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341526
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2021). The Standards. https://bit.ly/371QBRz
Opfer, J. E., & Siegler, R. S. (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living things concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic biology. Cognitive Psychology, 49(4), 301-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.01.002
Osborne, R., Freyberg, P. S., & Bell, B. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Heinemann.
Özgür, S. (2018). A study on young Turkish students’ living thing conception. Educational Research Review, 13(5), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2018.3476
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and prodecural skills in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346
Saxton, M., & Cakir, K. (2006). Counting, trading and partitioning: effects of training and prior knowledge on performance on base-10 tasks. Child Development, 77(3), 767-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00902.x
Setoh, P., Wu, D., Baillargeon, R., & Gelman, R. (2013). Young infants have biological expectations about animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(40), 15937–15942. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314075110
Stavy, R. (1990). Children’s conceptions of changes in the state of matter: From liquid (or solid) to gas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(3), 247-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270308
Stavy, R. (1991). Children’s ideas about matter. School Science and Mathematics, 91(6), 240-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1991.tb12090.x
Tarłowski, A., & Rybska, E. (2021).Young children’s inductive inferences within animals are affected by whether animals are presented anthropomorphically in films. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634809
Venville, G. (2004). Young children learning about living things: A case study of conceptual change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449-480. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20011
Villarroel, J. D., & Infante, G. (2014). Early understanding of the concept of living things: an examination of young children’s drawings of plant life. Journal of Biological Education, 48(3), 119-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.837406
Waxman, S. R., Herrmann, P., Woodring, J., & Medin, D. (2014). Humans (really) are animals: Picture-book reading influences 5-year-old urban children’s construal of the relation between humans and non-human animals. Frontier Psychology, 5, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00172
Weisberg, D. S., & Hopkins, E. J. (2020). Preschoolers’ extension and export of information from realistic and fantastical stories. Infant and Child Development, 9(4), 1-24 https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2182
Wüst-Ackermann, P., Vollmer, C. Randler, C., & Itzek-Greulich, H. (2018). The vivarium: maximizing learning with living invertebrates—an out-of-school intervention is more effective than an equivalent lesson at school. Insects, 9(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9010003