How Children Get to Know and Identify Species (original) (raw)
Related papers
Building a model of the environment: how do children see animals?
Journal of Biological Education, 1999
In order to name an animal they see, children use their existing mental models to provide the animal with a name. In this study, pupils of a range of ages (4, 8, 11 and 14 years old) were presented with preserved specimens of six different animals and asked a series of questions about them. The results indicate that pupils of all ages mainly recognise and use anatomical features when naming the animals and explaining why they are what they are. However, older pupils are more likely to also use behavioural and habitat attributes. For both girls and boys, the home and direct observation are more important as sources of knowledge than school or books, though books seem more important for boys than for girls. As pupils age, their reasons for grouping animals become more complicated: in addition to relying on shared anatomical features, they begin to show evidence of an embedded taxonomic knowledge, knowing, for instance, what a mammal is and using this knowledge to group animals.
Children’s conceptions about Animals, Plants and Nonliving Things before and after instruction
The conceptual organization of the environment in terms of living things, natural things and artefacts is an important debated question of cognition, which has a central role in science education at school. Science education and developmental psychology literature evidences the peculiar characteristics of children's biological conceptions: plants are included later than animals in the living domain and some biological properties were shown to be understood earlier in childhood (i.e. growth), while other properties appeared to be more complex (death and illness). Those results stress the importance to take into account the children's initial conceptions, in order to build teaching programme to promote such early understanding. This paper describes an empirical study focusing on biological knowledge of preschool and primary school children (4 to 8 years old), concerning the categorization of animals and plants as living. It also describes the conceptual change that occurs after an instructional intervention based on a constructivist theory of learning.
What Plants and Animals Do Early Childhood and Primary Students’ Name? Where Do They See Them
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2011
Children from England and the United States of America have a basic similar knowledge of plants and animals, which they observe during their everyday life. Nine children of ages 4, 6, 8, and 10 years, in each country, were asked to free-list plants and animals. Afterwards, they were interviewed individually about the plants and animals they listed to determine where they were seen. Additionally, children were asked to name animals they knew that were found in specific habitats or had specific characteristics. The results showed that children from the earliest years notice the animals in their everyday lives and 8 year olds were able to name the most animals. Plants were not named as often as animals and children in the USA found it difficult to name plants when questioned. This study shows that children are in touch with their everyday environment to varying extents, and that rich experiences can greatly contribute to their knowledge about plants and animals.
Young Children’s Developing Understanding of the Biological World
Early Education and Development, 2016
The purpose of this special issue of Early Education & Development is to showcase research on young children's understanding of the living world. In this Introduction our aim is to tie together the various articles in the issue by identifying key themes that run through multiple articles. We also provide some reflections on implications of the studies for policy and practice, including prescriptions for future work on the integrative study of children's biological understanding in the context of the early education classroom. One important theme in the study of children's biological understanding is folkbiology, which refers to the theoretical frameworks of beliefs and expectations about living things that emerge in the absence of formal instruction (Solomon & Zaitchik, 2012). There is increasing interest in the factors that shape the development of folkbiological knowledge (Gelman, 2009; Medin, Waxman, Woodring, & Washinawatok, 2010), a theme that is apparent throughout the special issue. The most prominent example is the article by Taverna, Medin, and Waxman (2016), who provide new insights from their work with the Wichi, an indigenous group from a remote forest region in Argentina. This study documents how Wichi children organize the natural world into categories based on taxonomic or perceptual similarities, on ecological factors such as shared habitat, and on beliefs about animacy and spiritual status. The emergence of these categories guides a view of the natural world that is distinctly less anthropocentric (i.e., less human centered) than the view adopted by children in many Western societies, especially urban ones. The theme of anthropocentrism is also apparent in the article by Ruckert (2016), who examines the intersection of folkbiological thinking with the development of moral reasoning about environmental concerns. Working in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, Ruckert examines children's responses to questions about values, obligations, and rights concerning endangered species. She contrasts anthropocentric thinking with a biocentric form of moral reasoning in which the natural world has moral standing independent of its value to humans. Ruckert finds that between 7 and 10 years of age, children's thinking shifts from human-centered concerns to more biocentric reasoning. Continuing the theme of influences on children's thinking about the natural world, the review by Longbottom and Slaughter (2016) examines how type of upbringing (urban vs. rural) and pet ownership affect children's reasoning about the relation of humans to other animals, the connections between different species, and basic knowledge about animal biology. After showing how differences in children's biological understandings are often associated with their direct experiences with outdoor experiences and with animals, the authors suggest that intervention research is needed on underlying mechanisms. Related anecdotal evidence that outdoor experiences influence children's biological understanding comes from the article by Tao (2016). In a Chinese sample of children ages 4 to 6 years, children who consistently applied a biological justification for plants as living things often mentioned their hands-on experience and involvement with growing flowers and vegetables with their parents or grandparents.
Building a model of the environment: how do children see plants?
In order to name and classify a plant they see, children use their existing mental models to provide the plant with a name and classification. In this study pupils of a range of ages (5, 8, 10, and 14 years old) were pre sented with preserved specimens of six different plants (strictly, five plants and a fungus) and asked a series of questions about them. Their responses indicate that pupils of all ages mainly recognise and use anatomical features when naming the plants and explaining why they are what they are. However, older pupils are more likely to also use habitat features. For both girls and boys, the home and direct observation are more impor tant sources of knowledge than school, TV, videos, CD-Roms, or books, although TV, videos, CD-Roms, and books seem more important for boys than for girls. As pupils age, their reasons for grouping plants become more complicated: in addition to relying on shared anatomical and habitat features, they begin to show evi dence of a knowledge of taxonomy and use this knowledge to group plants.
Students (ages 6, 10, and 15 years) in six countries knowledge of animals
Nordic Studies in Science Education
This article considers the knowledge students (ages 6, 10, and 15 years) have of animals from a cross-cultural perspective. Students from six countries (Brazil, England, Finland, Iceland, Portugal, and the United States of America) were asked to free-list as many animals as possible and state where they had seen or learned about the animals. The results were analyzed and they indicate that 1) Students are aware of animals. 2) Students are more aware of mammals as examples of animals. 3) There is a globally shared folk biological knowledge of animals. 4) Students learn about animals during sociocultural interactions. The educational implications are discussed.
Journal of Biological Education, 2019
In the twenty years since the first theory of ‘plant blindness’ was published much discussion has ensued concerning this phenomenon. More recent research, not only demonstrates that humans appear to favour animals over plants but also indicates a preference for mammals with forward-facing eyes. For this paper, we analysed answers to an online survey conducted with 202 student primary teachers in Sweden collected over a period of two years. We focus on two open-ended questions concerning favourite plant and animal choices and motivations for these choices. Our intention in this study was not to contrast animal vs. plant, but rather to further explore differential appreciation of plants and animals. Our findings suggest that there are large variations regarding relationships with plants and that affective connections with plant-life are translated through expressions of beauty, symbolic meaning, emotions (life-long) memories, colour, smell and size, and that similar characteristics seem to attract humans to animals. Our results – in line with arguments presented in recent studies – strongly suggest that in biological education and conservation contexts we should rely more intentionally on cultural and personal factors, utilise pre-existing experience based human-plant bonds, and in so doing reinforce human recognition and appreciation of plants.
1998
In order to name an animal they see, children must use their existing mental models to provide the animal with a name. In this study, pupils between the ages of 4 and 14 are presented with preserved specimens of 6 different animals and asked a series of questions about them. The results indicate that pupils of all ages mainly recognize and use anatomical features when naming the animals and explaining why they are what they are. Older students are more likely to use behavioral and habitat attributes and girls are more likely than boys to refer to features of the head, face, and eyes. For both girls and boys, the home and direct observation are more important as sources of knowledge than school or books, though books are more important for boys than girls. As students age their reasons for grouping animals becomes more complicated. (Contains 17 references.) (DDR)
Exploring students' understanding of species: a study with class VIII students
The paper reports an exploratory study on middle school level textbook representation of concepts of species and Class VIII students ideas of species. Thirty seven students (mean age: 13) participated in this study. It was found that students hold complex or hybrid views about species. Students' idea of the ability to inter-breed and similar characteristics among individuals of a species category, is similar to the textbook definition. However, their idea about species remain restricted to animals only. It is found that even school textbooks portray diversity of animals more than diversity of plants. Students hold several alternative views and misconceptions about species. The paper attempts to link textbook representation of species and students' understanding of species.