Author Index. Volume 34 2004

Authors Index

Author Index. Volume 34 2004     

Children's Causal Explanations of Animate and Inanimate Motion

Adults frequently refer to nonobvious, internal, or immanent causal mechanisms when explaining certain kinds of movement— such as the movement of animals (e.g., a rabbit hops because of its brain and muscles) and the self-sustained movement of artifacts (e.g., a toy moves on its own because of batteries or gears). This series of studies examined whether and when preschool children are willing to attribute internal and immanent causes to motion. In 3 studies, preschool children and adults viewed animals and artifacts (wind-up toys and transparent objects) either moving independently or being transported by a person. Children explained animal and artifact events differently, even with the kind of movement controlled: They were more likely to attribute immanent cause to animals than to artifacts and more likely to attribute human cause to artifacts than animals. Internal causes were less frequently endorsed overall; however, when asked to describe the insides of artifacts, children who saw them moving alone more often described internal mechanisms (e.g., batteries, electricity) than children who did not see them moving alone. Altogether, the studies suggest that children as young as 3 or 4 years of age honor two principles: For animals more than for artifacts, movement is caused by an immanent source, and across domains, movements without an observable agent have an internal or immanent source.     

Correct Interpretation of Chemical Diagrams Requires Transforming from One Level of Representation to Another

Volunteer non-major chemistry students taking an introductory university chemistry course (n = 17) were interviewed about their understanding of a variety of chemical diagrams. All the students’ interviewed appreciated that diagrams of laboratory equipment were useful to show how to set up laboratory equipment. However students’ ability to explain specific diagrams at either the macroscopic or sub-microscopic level varied greatly. The results highlighted the poor level of understanding that some students had even after completing both exercises and experiments using the diagrams. The connection between the diagrams of the macroscopic level (equipment, chemicals), the sub-microscopic level (molecular) and the symbolic level (equations) was not always considered explicitly by students. The results indicate a need for chemical diagrams to be used carefully and more explicitly to ensure learner understanding. Correspondingly, students need to interpret visual chemical diagrams using meta-visualization skills linking the various levels of representation, and appreciating the role of the diagrams in explanations need to be developed.     

Learners' perceptions of the role of peers in a research experience: Implications for the apprenticeship process,scientific inquiry,and collaborative work

This study investigates the interaction between four pairs of high school students in a 7‐week national research apprenticeship program. Each student was interviewed about perceptions of experiences working with a peer in the same setting, and the resulting stories were analyzed. Through discourse analysis of the interviews and interrelated analyses of data from journals and responses on pre‐ and postprogram questionnaires, three types of support were identified that students experienced to varying degrees: social–emotional, social–technical, and social–cognitive. It is concluded that social–cognitive support is best engendered if there is sufficient similarity of problems and processes, and ample room for different results and debate about interpretation. Additionally, the culture and reward system students work within (i.e., classrooms) must encourage discussion of ideas and value an outsider's perspective, in recognition of the roles creativity, uncertainty, and ambiguity play in science. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 45: 251–271, 2008.