Acquisition of naïve and scientific conceptions: How linguistic context matters in Singaporean children’s understanding of “animal”
More details
Hide details
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, SINGAPORE
Publication date: 2022-04-06
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2022;18(5):em2102
312 Singaporean children aged 4, 7, and 10 years from four different home language backgrounds–English, Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil–were tested for their recognition of animals and non-animals. The Malay-speaking group of children was the notable group that showed a different developmental pattern from the other three groups. They performed significantly better on recognition of all animals and of non-archetypal animals, for both the English and the Malay test versions. Age-related patterns suggest a U-shaped performance curve, with 4-year-olds mostly scoring slightly higher than 7-year-olds, in line with the suggestion that archetypal definitions begin to emerge around 3-4 years of age. The notable exception was again the Malay-speaking children, who followed a simple linear improvement. Out of the four languages, Malay has the broadest archetypal definition of animal, which may help explain these effects, suggesting that home language exposure that has broader definitions may strengthen a child’s understanding when also learning in the context of a different instructional language. Overall, the study may have implications for understanding the role of language in the formation of scientific concepts as well as for instructional approaches by taking into consideration how everyday language may need to be taken into account when teaching about animals.
Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207-245.
Allen, M. (2014). Misconceptions in primary science. Open University Press.
Allen, M. (2015). Preschool children’s taxonomic knowledge of animal species. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 107-134.
Bell, B. F. (1981). When is an animal, not an animal? Journal of Biological Education, 15, 213-218.
Bierema, A. M.-K., & Schwartz, R. S. (2015). Undergraduate biology students’ interpretations of the term “animal”. Anthrozoös, 28(3), 371-383.
Bliss, J. (2008). Commonsense reasoning about the physical world. Studies in Science Education, 44(2), 123-155.
Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: Species preferences. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 45-59.
Chen, S.-H., & Ku, C.-H. (1998). Aboriginal children’s alternative conceptions of animals and animal classification. Proceedings of the National Science Council ROC D, 8, 55-67.
Cornelisse, T. M., & Sagasta, J. (2018). The effect of conservation knowledge on attitudes and stated behaviors toward arthropods of urban and suburban elementary school students. Anthrozoös, 31(3), 283-296.
Department of Statistics. (2016). General household survey 2015. MTI.
Duit, R., Treagust, D. F., & Widodo, A. (2013). Teaching science for conceptual change: Theory and practice. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 487-503). Routledge.
Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2017). From seeing to observing: How parents and children learn to see science in a botanical garden. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 608-642.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Fouquet, N., Megalakaki, O., & Labrell, F. (2017). Children’s understanding of animal, plant, and artifact properties between 3 and 6 years. Infant and Child Development, 26(6), e2032.
France, A. (2021). Teachers using dialogue to support science learning in the primary classroom. Research in Science Education, 51(3), 845-859.
Furrer, S. D., & Younger, B. A. (2005). Beyond the distributional input? A developmental investigation of asymmetry in infants’ categorization of cats and dogs. Developmental Science, 8(6), 544-550.
Hast, M. (2014a). Collaborating with the ‘more capable’ self: Achieving conceptual change in early science education through underlying knowledge structures. ReflectED, St Mary’s Journal of Education, 3, 18-25.
Hast, M. (2014b). Exploring the shift in children’s incline motion predictions: Fragmentation and integration of knowledge as possible contributors. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 74-81.
Hast, M. (2018). It’s all relative: The role of object weight in toddlers’ gravity bias. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 696-704.
Hast, M. (2019). Representational momentum in displacement tasks: Relative object weight matters in toddlers’ search behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(2), 173-178.
Hast, M. (2020). “It is there but you need to dig a little deeper for it to become evident to them”: Tacit knowledge assessment in the primary science classroom. In C. Koh (Ed.), Diversifying learner experience: A kaleidoscope of instructional approaches and strategies (pp. 13-28). Springer.
Hast, M., & Howe, C. (2015). Children’s predictions and recognition of fall: The role of object mass. Cognitive Development, 36, 103-110.
Hast, M., & Howe, C. (2017). Changing predictions, stable recognition: Children’s representations of downward incline motion. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 516-530.
Kovack-Lesh, K. A., Horst, J. S., & Oakes, L. M. (2008). The cat is out of the bag: The joint influence of previous experience and looking behavior on infant categorization. Infancy, 13(4), 285-307.
Lavonen, J. (2020). Curriculum and teacher education reforms in Finland that support the development of competences for the twenty-first century. In F. M. Reimers (Ed.), Audacious education purposes: How governments transform the goals of education systems (pp. 65-80). Springer.
Mandler, J. J. (2004). Thought before language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 508-513.
Marosi, N., Avraamidou, L., & Galani, L. (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogies in science education as a response to global migration. SN Social Sciences, 1(6), 147.
Melis, C., Wold, P.-A., Billing, A. M., Bjørgen, K., & Moe, B. (2020). Kindergarten children’s perception about the ecological roles of living organisms. Sustainability, 12(22), 9565.
MOE. (2014). Science syllabus primary. Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Papadopoulou, P., & Athanasiou, K. (2005). Primary school teachers’ categories for “animal”: Biology or folkbiology? In M. Ergazaki, J. Lewis, & V. Zogza (Eds.), Trends in biology education research in the new biology era (pp. 43-58). Patras University Press.
Papadopoulou, P., & Athanasiou, K. (2015). Children ideas for “animal” compared to teachers’ conceptions. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences, 2(6), 462-471.
Pizarro-Neyra, J. (2011). Peruvian children’s folk taxonomy of marine animals. Ethnobiology Letters, 2, 50-57.
Tema, B. O. (1989). Rural and urban African pupils’ alternative conceptions of ‘animal’. Journal of Biological Education, 23(3), 199-207.
Torkar, G., & Mavrič, I. (2016). Young Slovenian learners’ knowledge about animal diversity on different continents. International Journal of Biology Education, 5(1), 1-11.
Träuble, B., & Pauen, S. (2011). Infants’ reasoning about ambiguous motion events: The role of spatiotemporal and dispositional status information. Cognitive Development, 26(1), 1-15.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., Gatt, S., Agius, C., & Pizzuto, S. A. (2008). Animals in the lives of young Maltese children. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 215-221.
Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S., Halinen, I., Niemi, H., Lavonen, J., & Lipponen, L. (2014). A new Finnish national core curriculum for basic education (2014) and technology as an integrated tool for learning. In H. Niemi, J. Multisilta, L. Lipponen, & M. Vivitsou (Eds.), Finnish innovations and technologies in schools: A guide towards new ecosystems of learning (pp. 21-32). Sense Publishers.
Villalbi, R. M., & Lucas, A. M. (1991). When is an animal not an animal? When it speaks English! Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 184-188.
Westermann, G., & Mareschal, D. (2014). From perceptual to language-mediated categorization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120391.
Yen, C.-F., Yao, T.-W., & Mintzes, J. J. (2007). Taiwanese students’ alternative conceptions of animal biodiversity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 535-553.
Young, A., Khalil, K. A., & Wharton, J. (2018). Empathy for animals: A review of the existing literature. Curator: The Museum Journal, 61(2), 327-343.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top