The Interaction of Domain-Specific Knowledge and Domain-General Discovery Strategies: A Study with Sinking Objects

Abstract

Recent work on scientific reasoning has largely focused on either domain-specific content knowledge or domain-general reasoning knowledge. This study investigated the interaction between the 2 types of knowledge in a real-world domain in which strict control of variables was not possible. We used a context, sinking objects, in which 10-, 12-, and, 14-year-old children's strong a priori beliefs could be revealed by participant-designed experiments. The results showed that most children initially believed weight alone determined an object's sinking rate. Older, but not younger, participants typically viewed experimentation as a means of exploring the effects of attributes other than weight. However, experimentation did help all children to understand the effects of object shape and material on sinking rates. The results suggests a number of questions for further research, including how children come to understand experimentation as a matter of evaluation rather than demonstration, and the role of unexpected experimental results in driving conceptual understanding.

Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding

“…First, adolescents' inaccurate knowledge in physical science is typically robust e meaning their knowledge structures have been consistently reinforced and are most likely difficult to change (Brna, 1987;Chinn & Malhotra, 2002;Clement, 1982;Penner & Klahr, 1996). For example, in previous research, most early adolescents inaccurately reported that the mass of an object affects the speed at which it travels and were unlikely to change their response, even when provided contrary data (Renken & Nunez, 2010).…”

Preschoolers Learning Science: Myth or Reality?

“…Of course, sometimes their beliefs are mistaken; they hold misconceptions. For example, children believe that heavy stuff sinks fast (e.g., Kloos & Somerville, 2001;Penner & Klahr, 1996), that the sun is alive, but not plants (Venville, 2004), or that the earth is disc-shaped (e.g., Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). To what extent can early science instruction build upon children's existing knowledge to convey new facts and change mistaken beliefs?…”

On Coordinating Theory with Evidence: The Role of Epistemic Commitments in Scientific Reasoning among College Students

“…Thus, this latter line of investigation focused on scientific reasoning processes involved in acquiring new knowledge starting with prior knowledge as a point of departure. Investigating the development of scientific reasoning or thinking under this umbrella has been referred to as a "domain-specific" (Penner & Klahr, 1996;Zimmerman 2000), "knowledge-based" (Samarapungavan, 1992) or "conceptual change" (Schauble, 1996) approach. A second major approach to the study of scientific reasoning deals with processes involved in hypothesis testing and experimental design (e.g., Kuhn et al, 1988;Lawson et al, 2000;Schunn & Anderson, 1999) and has been referred to as a "domaingeneral" approach (Penner & Klahr, 1996) or "experimentation strategy" (Schauble, 1996).…”

“…Some researchers (e.g., Penner & Klahr, 1996;Schunn & Anderson, 1999) view these connotations of scientific reasoning as reflecting two types of knowledge, declarative and procedural. Declarative knowledge is descriptive or substantive knowledge (i.e., knowing that), whereas procedural knowledge is performative knowledge that is enacted in the form of skills (i.e., knowing how) (Schunn & Anderson, 1999).…”